处理随机对照试验中缺失的结果数据:方法学范围综述。

IF 2 3区 医学 Q3 MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL
Ellie Medcalf , Robin M. Turner , David Espinoza , Vicky He , Katy J.L. Bell
{"title":"处理随机对照试验中缺失的结果数据:方法学范围综述。","authors":"Ellie Medcalf ,&nbsp;Robin M. Turner ,&nbsp;David Espinoza ,&nbsp;Vicky He ,&nbsp;Katy J.L. Bell","doi":"10.1016/j.cct.2024.107602","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Missing outcome data is common in trials, and robust methods to address this are needed. Most trial reports currently use methods applicable under a missing completely at random assumption (MCAR), although this strong assumption can often be inappropriate.</p></div><div><h3>Objective</h3><p>To identify and summarise current literature on the analytical methods for handling missing outcome data in randomised controlled trials (RCTs), emphasising methods appropriate for data missing at random (MAR) or missing not at random (MNAR).</p></div><div><h3>Study design and setting</h3><p>We conducted a methodological scoping review and identified papers through searching four databases (MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, and CINAHL) from January 2015 to March 2023. We also performed forward and backward citation searching. Eligible papers discussed methods or frameworks for handling missing outcome data in RCTs or simulation studies with an RCT design.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>From 1878 records screened, our search identified 101 eligible papers. 90 (89%) papers described specific methods for addressing missing outcome data and 11 (11%) described frameworks for overall methodological approach. Of the 90 methods papers, 30 (33%) described methods under the MAR assumption, 48 (53%) explored methods under the MNAR assumption and 11 (12%) discussed methods under a hybrid of MAR and MNAR assumptions. Control-based methods under the MNAR assumption were the most common method explored, followed by multiple imputation under the MAR assumption.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>This review provides guidance on available analytic approaches for handling missing outcome data, particularly under the MNAR assumption. These findings may support trialists in using appropriate methods to address missing outcome data.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":10636,"journal":{"name":"Contemporary clinical trials","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S155171442400185X/pdfft?md5=778068f8f07156e0db40c8d233959473&pid=1-s2.0-S155171442400185X-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Addressing missing outcome data in randomised controlled trials: A methodological scoping review\",\"authors\":\"Ellie Medcalf ,&nbsp;Robin M. Turner ,&nbsp;David Espinoza ,&nbsp;Vicky He ,&nbsp;Katy J.L. Bell\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.cct.2024.107602\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Missing outcome data is common in trials, and robust methods to address this are needed. Most trial reports currently use methods applicable under a missing completely at random assumption (MCAR), although this strong assumption can often be inappropriate.</p></div><div><h3>Objective</h3><p>To identify and summarise current literature on the analytical methods for handling missing outcome data in randomised controlled trials (RCTs), emphasising methods appropriate for data missing at random (MAR) or missing not at random (MNAR).</p></div><div><h3>Study design and setting</h3><p>We conducted a methodological scoping review and identified papers through searching four databases (MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, and CINAHL) from January 2015 to March 2023. We also performed forward and backward citation searching. Eligible papers discussed methods or frameworks for handling missing outcome data in RCTs or simulation studies with an RCT design.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>From 1878 records screened, our search identified 101 eligible papers. 90 (89%) papers described specific methods for addressing missing outcome data and 11 (11%) described frameworks for overall methodological approach. Of the 90 methods papers, 30 (33%) described methods under the MAR assumption, 48 (53%) explored methods under the MNAR assumption and 11 (12%) discussed methods under a hybrid of MAR and MNAR assumptions. Control-based methods under the MNAR assumption were the most common method explored, followed by multiple imputation under the MAR assumption.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>This review provides guidance on available analytic approaches for handling missing outcome data, particularly under the MNAR assumption. These findings may support trialists in using appropriate methods to address missing outcome data.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":10636,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Contemporary clinical trials\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S155171442400185X/pdfft?md5=778068f8f07156e0db40c8d233959473&pid=1-s2.0-S155171442400185X-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Contemporary clinical trials\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S155171442400185X\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Contemporary clinical trials","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S155171442400185X","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:缺失结果数据在试验中很常见,因此需要稳健的方法来解决这一问题。目前,大多数试验报告都使用完全随机缺失假设(MCAR)下适用的方法,但这种强假设往往并不合适:目的:确定并总结当前有关随机对照试验(RCT)中缺失结果数据处理分析方法的文献,强调适用于随机缺失(MAR)或非随机缺失(MNAR)数据的方法:我们进行了方法学范围综述,并通过检索 2015 年 1 月至 2023 年 3 月期间的四个数据库(MEDLINE、Embase、CENTRAL 和 CINAHL)确定了论文。我们还进行了正向和反向引文检索。符合条件的论文讨论了在 RCT 或采用 RCT 设计的模拟研究中处理缺失结果数据的方法或框架:从筛选出的 1878 条记录中,我们搜索出了 101 篇符合条件的论文。90篇(89%)论文介绍了处理缺失结果数据的具体方法,11篇(11%)论文介绍了总体方法框架。在这 90 篇介绍方法的论文中,30 篇(33%)介绍了 MAR 假设下的方法,48 篇(53%)探讨了 MNAR 假设下的方法,11 篇(12%)讨论了 MAR 和 MNAR 混合假设下的方法。基于 MNAR 假设的控制方法是最常见的方法,其次是基于 MAR 假设的多重估算方法:本综述为处理缺失结果数据的可用分析方法提供了指导,尤其是在 MNAR 假设下。这些发现可帮助试验人员使用适当的方法处理缺失的结果数据。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Addressing missing outcome data in randomised controlled trials: A methodological scoping review

Background

Missing outcome data is common in trials, and robust methods to address this are needed. Most trial reports currently use methods applicable under a missing completely at random assumption (MCAR), although this strong assumption can often be inappropriate.

Objective

To identify and summarise current literature on the analytical methods for handling missing outcome data in randomised controlled trials (RCTs), emphasising methods appropriate for data missing at random (MAR) or missing not at random (MNAR).

Study design and setting

We conducted a methodological scoping review and identified papers through searching four databases (MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, and CINAHL) from January 2015 to March 2023. We also performed forward and backward citation searching. Eligible papers discussed methods or frameworks for handling missing outcome data in RCTs or simulation studies with an RCT design.

Results

From 1878 records screened, our search identified 101 eligible papers. 90 (89%) papers described specific methods for addressing missing outcome data and 11 (11%) described frameworks for overall methodological approach. Of the 90 methods papers, 30 (33%) described methods under the MAR assumption, 48 (53%) explored methods under the MNAR assumption and 11 (12%) discussed methods under a hybrid of MAR and MNAR assumptions. Control-based methods under the MNAR assumption were the most common method explored, followed by multiple imputation under the MAR assumption.

Conclusion

This review provides guidance on available analytic approaches for handling missing outcome data, particularly under the MNAR assumption. These findings may support trialists in using appropriate methods to address missing outcome data.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.70
自引率
4.50%
发文量
281
审稿时长
44 days
期刊介绍: Contemporary Clinical Trials is an international peer reviewed journal that publishes manuscripts pertaining to all aspects of clinical trials, including, but not limited to, design, conduct, analysis, regulation and ethics. Manuscripts submitted should appeal to a readership drawn from disciplines including medicine, biostatistics, epidemiology, computer science, management science, behavioural science, pharmaceutical science, and bioethics. Full-length papers and short communications not exceeding 1,500 words, as well as systemic reviews of clinical trials and methodologies will be published. Perspectives/commentaries on current issues and the impact of clinical trials on the practice of medicine and health policy are also welcome.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信