CONTINUOUS MISSING PARTICIPANT DATA IN RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background and Objectives: Missing participant data are likely to bias the results of randomized control trials (RCTs) when the reason for missingness is associated with status on the outcome of interest. Unlike dichotomous MPD in RCTs, which have been thoroughly investigated, knowledge regarding continuous MPD in RCTs is much more limited. Our objectives were 1) using an adapted checklist, to assess the reporting quality of simulation studies comparing methods to deal with continuous MPD; 2) identify optimal methods proposed by biostatisticians and tested in simulations studies for continuous MPD in RCTs; 3) evaluate how authors report MPD, and how they plan and conduct analyses to deal with MPD in RCTs. Methods: We conducted two systematic surveys. The first identified methods papers published till 2015 January that compared statistical approaches to deal with continuous MPD in RCTs using at least one simulation. In this sample, we considered both the quality of reporting and the results. The second survey identified a representative sample of individual RCTs published in 2014 in core journals reporting the results of at least one continuous variable addressing a patient-important outcome. Results and conclusion: Our survey identified important limitations in reporting quality of simulation studies that compared statistical approaches to deal with continuous MPD, particularly in the reporting of simulation procedures. Only one of 60 studies reported the random number generator used and none reported starting seeds or failures during simulation. Less then half reported software used to perform simulation (41.7%) or analysis (48.3%), and only 4 (5%) reported justification of number of simulations. When facing continuous MPD in RCTs, results of simulation studies demonstrate that trialists seeking optimal approaches may choose robust regression or mixed models and avoid using last observation caring forward. Continuous MPD frequently occurs in RCTs and the extent is typically substantial (median greater than 10%). Methods sections in trial reports typically do not provide adequate detail on how they dealt with MPD in their primary analysis. Among methods actually implemented to deal with MPD, most authors use only available data, thus excluding MPD from the analysis. Seldom do investigators apply statistical approaches to impute or taking into account of MPD nor conduct sensitivity analysis to address the impact of it. A comprehensive knowledge synthesis summarizing current available statistical approaches and its relative merits, as well as the current used methods in RCTs provide clear implications on how the practise of using methods to handle continuous MPD should shift in individual RCTs. Trialists should use mixed models and robust regressions and avoid using last observation caring forward method.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,684 | 0,907 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,008 | 0,012 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,010 | 0,013 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,003 | 0,016 |
| Communication savante | 0,011 | 0,011 |
| Science ouverte | 0,008 | 0,008 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,011 | 0,011 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,007 | 0,002 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; l’étiquette directe de Gemma et le classifieur distillé Codex s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».