Missing Outcome Data in Recent Perinatal and Neonatal Clinical Trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Missing outcome data in clinical trials may jeopardize the validity of the trial results and inferences for clinical practice. Although sick and preterm newborns are treated as a captive patient population during their stay in the NICUs, their long-term outcomes are often ascertained after discharge. This greatly increases the risk of attrition. We surveyed recently published perinatal and neonatal randomized trials in 7 high-impact general medical and pediatric journals to review the handling of missing primary outcome data and any choice of imputation methods. Of 87 eligible trials in this survey, 77 (89%) had incomplete primary outcome data. The missing outcome data were not discussed at all in 9 reports (12%). Most study teams restricted their main analysis to participants with complete information for the primary outcome (61 trials; 79%). Only 38 of the 77 teams (49%) performed sensitivity analyses using a variety of imputation methods. We conclude that the handling of missing primary outcome data was frequently inadequate in recent randomized perinatal and neonatal trials. To improve future approaches to missing outcome data, we discuss the strengths and limitations of different imputation methods, the appropriate estimation of sample size, and how to deal with data withdrawal. However, the best strategy to reduce bias from missing outcome data in perinatal and neonatal trials remains prevention. Investigators should anticipate and preempt missing data through careful study design, and closely monitor all incoming primary outcome data for completeness during the conduct of the trial.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.561 | 0.842 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.014 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.019 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".