| Autor: |
Akl, Elie A., Carrasco-Labra, Alonso, Brignardello-Petersen, Romina, Neumann, Ignacio, Johnston, Bradley C., Sun, Xin, Briel, Matthias, Busse, Jason W., Ebrahim, Shanil, Granados, Carlos E., Iorio, Alfonso, Irfan, Affan, Martinez Garcia, Laura, Mustafa, Reem A., Ramirez-Morera, Anggie, Selva, Anna, Sola, Ivan, Sanabria, Andrea Juliana, Tikkinen, Kari A. O., Vandvik, Per O., Vernooij, Robin W. M., Zazueta, Oscar E., Zhou, Qi, Guyatt, Gordon H., Alonso-Coello, Pablo |
| Přispěvatelé: |
Urologian yksikkö, University of Helsinki, Clinicum, Department of Public Health |
| Jazyk: |
angličtina |
| Rok vydání: |
2015 |
| Předmět: |
|
| Popis: |
Objectives: To describe how systematic reviewers are reporting missing data for dichotomous outcomes, handling them in the analysis and assessing the risk of associated bias. Methods: We searched MEDLINE and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for systematic reviews of randomised trials published in 2010, and reporting a meta-analysis of a dichotomous outcome. We randomly selected 98 Cochrane and 104 non-Cochrane systematic reviews. Teams of 2 reviewers selected eligible studies and abstracted data independently and in duplicate using standardised, piloted forms with accompanying instructions. We conducted regression analyses to explore factors associated with using complete case analysis and with judging the risk of bias associated with missing participant data. Results: Of Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews, 47% and 7% (p Conclusions: Though Cochrane reviews are somewhat less problematic, most Cochrane and non-Cochrane systematic reviews fail to adequately report and handle missing data, potentially resulting in misleading judgements regarding risk of bias. |
| Databáze: |
OpenAIRE |
| Externí odkaz: |
|
