Development of guidelines to reduce, handle and report missing data in palliative care trials: A multi-stakeholder modified nominal group technique

1. Hussain, J . Why we need to tackle the problem of missing data in palliative care research. Marie Curie (2017). https://www.mariecurie.org.uk/blog/why-we-need-to-tackle-missing-data/170450
Google Scholar2. National Research Council (US) Panel on Handling Missing Data in Clinical Trials . The prevention and treatment of missing data in clinical trials. Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2010.
Google Scholar3. Chalmers, I, Glasziou, P. Avoidable waste in the production and reporting of research evidence. Lancet 2009; 374: 86–89.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI4. Hussain, JA, White, IR, Langan, D, et al. Missing data in randomized controlled trials testing palliative interventions pose a significant risk of bias and loss of power: a systematic review and meta-analyses. J Clin Epidemiol 2016; 74: 57–65.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI5. Akl, EA, Briel, M, You, JJ, et al. Potential impact on estimated treatment effects of information lost to follow-up in randomised controlled trials (LOST-IT): systematic review. BMJ 2012; 344: e2809.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline6. Wood, AM, White, IR, Thompson, SG. Are missing outcome data adequately handled? A review of published randomized controlled trials in major medical journals. Clin Trials 2004; 1: 368–376.
Google Scholar | SAGE Journals7. Bell, ML, Fiero, M, Horton, NJ, et al. Handling missing data in RCTs; a review of the top medical journals. BMC Med Res Methodol 2014; 14: 118.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI8. Hussain, JA. The reporting, extent, risk of bias and factors associated with missing data in palliative care randomised controlled trials. Unpublished PhD Thesis, Hull York Medical School, UK, 2018.
Google Scholar9. Hussain, JA, Bland, M, Langan, D, et al. Quality of missing data reporting and handling in palliative care trials demonstrates that further development of the CONSORT statement is required: a systematic review. J Clin Epidemiol 2017; 88: 81–91.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline10. ICH . ICH Harmonised Tripartite Guideline: Statistical principles for clinical trials. In: International conference on harmonisation of technical requirements for registration of pharmaceuticals for human use, 1998. ICH. https://www.ich.org/page/efficacy-guidelines#9-2
Google Scholar11. European Medicines Agency . European Medicines Agency guideline on missing data in confirmatory clinical trials. London: EMA, 2010.
Google Scholar12. Preston, NJ, Fayers, P, Walters, SJ, et al. Recommendations for managing missing data, attrition and response shift in palliative and end-of-life care research: part of the MORECare research method guidance on statistical issues. Palliat Med 2013; 27: 899–907.
Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI13. Manera, K, Hanson, CS, Gutman, T, et al. Consensus methods: nominal group technique. In: Liamputtong, P (ed.) Handbook of research methods in health social sciences. Singapore: Springer, 2019, pp.737–750.
Google Scholar | Crossref14. Braun, V, Clarke, V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol 2006; 3: 77–101.
Google Scholar | Crossref15. Macleod, MR, Michie, S, Roberts, I, et al. Biomedical research: increasing value, reducing waste. Lancet 2014; 383: 101–104.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI16. White, IR, Horton, NJ, Carpenter, J, et al. Strategy for intention to treat analysis in randomised trials with missing outcome data. BMJ 2011; 342: d40.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline17. Petkovic, J, Riddle, A, Akl, EA, et al. Protocol for the development of guidance for stakeholder engagement in health and healthcare guideline development and implementation. Syst Rev 2020; 9: 21.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline18. Hussain, JA, White, IR, Johnson, MJ, et al. Performance status and trial site-level factors are associated with missing data in palliative care trials: an individual participant-level data analysis of 10 phase 3 trials. Palliat Med 2021; 2021: 2692163211040970.
Google Scholar19. Kastner, M, Bhattacharyya, O, Hayden, L, et al. Guideline uptake is influenced by six implementability domains for creating and communicating guidelines: a realist review. J Clin Epidemiol 2015; 68: 498–509.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline20. Brueton, VC, Tierney, J, Stenning, S, et al. Strategies to improve retention in randomised trials. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013; 12: MR000032.
Google Scholar21. Trial Forge . What is PRIORITY II about?, https://www.trialforge.org/priority-two/ (2018, accessed February 2019).
Google Scholar22. Oriani, A, Dunleavy, L, Sharples, P, et al. Are the MORECare guidelines on reporting of attrition in palliative care research populations appropriate? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. BMC Palliat Care 2020; 19: 6.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline23. Panteli, D, Legido-Quigley, H, Reichebner, C, et al. Clinical practice guidelines as a quality strategy. In: Busse, R, Klazinga, N, Panteli, D (eds) Improving healthcare quality in Europe: characteristics, effectiveness and implementation of different strategies. Copenhagen (Denmark): European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies, 2019. (Health Policy Series, No. 53.) 9. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK549283/
Google Scholar

留言 (0)

沒有登入
gif