Quality of missing data reporting and handling in palliative care trials demonstrates that further development of the CONSORT statement is required: a systematic review

Hussain, JA; Bland, M; Langan, D; Johnson, MJ; Currow, DC; White, IR

Quality of missing data reporting and handling in palliative care trials demonstrates that further development of the CONSORT statement is required: a systematic review

Hussain, JA Bland, M Langan, D Johnson, MJ Currow, DC

White, IR

Permalink

Publication Type:: Journal Article
Citation:: Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 2017, 88 pp. 81 - 91
Issue Date:: 2017-08-01

Open Access

Copyright Clearance Process

Recently Added
In Progress
Open Access

This item is open access.

Adobe PDF

Download Published VersionAdobe PDF (487.16 kB)

View on publisher's site

View statistics

Full metadata record

Field	Value	Language
dc.contributor.author	Hussain, JA	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Bland, M	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Langan, D	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Johnson, MJ	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Currow, DC https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1988-1250	en_US
dc.contributor.author	White, IR	en_US
dc.date.available	2017-05-15	en_US
dc.date.issued	2017-08-01	en_US
dc.identifier.citation	Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 2017, 88 pp. 81 - 91	en_US
dc.identifier.issn	0895-4356	en_US
dc.identifier.uri	http://hdl.handle.net/10453/123613
dc.description.abstract	© 2017 The Authors Objectives Assess (i) the quality of reporting and handling of missing data (MD) in palliative care trials, (ii) whether there are differences in the reporting of criteria specified by the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) 2010 statement compared with those not specified, and (iii) the association of the reporting of MD with journal impact factor and CONSORT endorsement status. Study Design and Setting Systematic review of palliative care randomized controlled trials. CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE (2009–2014) were searched. Results One hundred and eight trials (15,560 participants) were included. MD was incompletely reported and not handled in accordance with current guidance. Reporting criteria specified by the CONSORT statement were better reported than those not specified (participant flow, 69%; number of participants not included in the primary outcome analysis, 94%; and the reason for MD, 71%). However, MD in items contributing to scale summaries (10%) and secondary outcomes (9%) were poorly reported, so the proportion of MD stated is likely to be an underestimate. The reason for MD provided was unclear for 54% of participants and only 16% of trials with MD reported a MD sensitivity analysis. The odds of reporting most of the MD and other risk of bias reporting criteria were increased as the journal impact factor increased and in journals that endorsed the CONSORT statement. Conclusion Further development of the CONSORT MD reporting guidance is likely to improve the quality of reporting. Reporting recommendations are provided.	en_US
dc.relation.ispartof	Journal of Clinical Epidemiology	en_US
dc.relation.isbasedon	10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.05.009	en_US
dc.subject.classification	Epidemiology	en_US
dc.subject.mesh	Humans	en_US
dc.subject.mesh	Palliative Care	en_US
dc.subject.mesh	Research Design	en_US
dc.subject.mesh	Quality Control	en_US
dc.subject.mesh	Guideline Adherence	en_US
dc.subject.mesh	Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic	en_US
dc.subject.mesh	Journal Impact Factor	en_US
dc.subject.mesh	Research Report	en_US
dc.title	Quality of missing data reporting and handling in palliative care trials demonstrates that further development of the CONSORT statement is required: a systematic review	en_US
dc.type	Journal Article
utslib.citation.volume	88	en_US
utslib.for	1101 Medical Biochemistry and Metabolomics	en_US
utslib.for	0102 Applied Mathematics	en_US
utslib.for	01 Mathematical Sciences	en_US
utslib.for	11 Medical and Health Sciences	en_US
pubs.embargo.period	Not known	en_US
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Health
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Health/IMPACCT
utslib.copyright.status	open_access
pubs.publication-status	Published	en_US
pubs.volume	88	en_US

Abstract:

© 2017 The Authors Objectives Assess (i) the quality of reporting and handling of missing data (MD) in palliative care trials, (ii) whether there are differences in the reporting of criteria specified by the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) 2010 statement compared with those not specified, and (iii) the association of the reporting of MD with journal impact factor and CONSORT endorsement status. Study Design and Setting Systematic review of palliative care randomized controlled trials. CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE (2009–2014) were searched. Results One hundred and eight trials (15,560 participants) were included. MD was incompletely reported and not handled in accordance with current guidance. Reporting criteria specified by the CONSORT statement were better reported than those not specified (participant flow, 69%; number of participants not included in the primary outcome analysis, 94%; and the reason for MD, 71%). However, MD in items contributing to scale summaries (10%) and secondary outcomes (9%) were poorly reported, so the proportion of MD stated is likely to be an underestimate. The reason for MD provided was unclear for 54% of participants and only 16% of trials with MD reported a MD sensitivity analysis. The odds of reporting most of the MD and other risk of bias reporting criteria were increased as the journal impact factor increased and in journals that endorsed the CONSORT statement. Conclusion Further development of the CONSORT MD reporting guidance is likely to improve the quality of reporting. Reporting recommendations are provided.

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:

http://hdl.handle.net/10453/123613