Table 2

Comparison of data reporting including missing data and its handling in 2006 and 2016 RCTs

CharacteristicsAll
(N=76)
Study yearP value
2006 (N=34)2016 (N=42)
Total patients0.913
 Median (IQR)162 (74–326)163 (53–367)159 (79–311)
 Range21–140421–109343–1404
Patient per cent completing study*0.089
 Median (IQR)86.4 (79.5–91.6)84.5 (72.8–91.8)87.9 (81.7–91.6)
 Range38.5–10040.9–95.838-5–100
Patient per cent analysed for primary outcome†0.962
 Median (IQR)99.7 (97.1–100)99.5 (97.3–100)99.7 (97–100)
 Range38.5–10085.8–10038.5–100
Patient in experiment arm(s)0.81
 Median (IQR)100 (40–217)99 (29–252)103 (40–177)
 Range11–128611–75119–1286
Patient per cent completing study in experimental arm(s)‡0.405
 Median (IQR)87.7 (81.3–93.1)86.4 (81.7–93)88.6 (80.7–94.4)
 Range37.5–10045.2–10037.5–100
Patient per cent analysed for primary outcome in experimental arm(s)§0.721
 Median (IQR)100 (99.6–100)100 (99.3–100)100 (99.6–100)
 Range37.5–10088.6–10037.5–100
Patient in comparator arm¶0.983
 Median (IQR)56 (30–132)68 (25–141)53 (31–121)
 Range10–53210–53115–532
Patient per cent completing study in comparator arm**0.1
 Median (IQR)84.4 (73–91.5)81.9 (64.6–90.6)84.9 (78.1–93.5)
 Range23.9–10030–93.723.9–100
Patient per cent analysed for primary outcome in comparator arm0.507
 Median (IQR)100 (97.2–100)100 (96.1–100)100 (97.6–100)
 Range39.5–10084.5–10039.5–100
Adequate sample size calculation description††43 (66.2)19 (61.3)24 (70.6)0.429
Sample size inflation anticipating follow-up loss††13 (20.0)4 (12.9)9 (26.5)0.167
Adequate follow-up description64 (84.2)28 (82.4)36 (85.7)0.689
Flow diagram for patient follow-up0.016
 Adequate31 (40.8)17 (50.0)14 (33.3)
 Inadequate18 (23.7)3 (8.8)15 (35.7)
 Not reported27 (35.5)14 (41.2)13 (31.0)
Amount of missing outcome data*0.042
 <5%10 (13.9)1 (3.1)9 (22.5)
 5.1%–10%13 (18.1)8 (25.0)5 (12.5)
 10.1%–20%31 (43.1)13 (40.6)18 (45.0)
 >20%18 (25)10 (31.3)8 (20.0)
Missing data handling method given‡‡0.75
 N (%)48 (65.8)23 (67.6)25 (64.1)
Self-reported analysis term used0.05
 ITT33 (43.4)20 (58.8)13 (43.4)
 Modified ITT6 (7.9)2 (5.9)4 (9.5)
 None37 (48.7)12 (35.3)25 (59.5)
Actual analysis performed0.266
 ITT29 (38.2)12 (35.3)17 (40.5)
 Modified ITT20 (26.3)11 (32.4)9 (21.4)
 Completer/inadequate15 (19.7)4 (11.8)11 (26.2)
 Unclear12 (15.8)7 (20.6)5 (11.9)
Top methods to impute missing data
 LOCF, N (%)29 (38.2)17 (50.0)12 (28.6)0.056
 NRI, N (%)22 (28.9)10 (29.4)12 (28.6)0.936
 Simple imputation, N (%)11 (14.5)6 (17.6)9 (21.4)0.68
Performed sensitivity analysis0.452
 N (%)14 (18.4)5 (14.7)9 (21.4)
  • *N=72, number of patients completing the trial unclear for four RCTs.

  • †N=73, number of patients included in primary outcome analysis unclear for three RCTs.

  • ‡N=69, number of patients in experimental arm(s) completing the trial unclear for seven RCTs.

  • §N=70, number of patients in experimental arm(s) included in primary outcome analysis unclear for six RCTs.

  • ¶N=75, one RCT had three arms with different doses of experimental intervention, no comparator group.

  • **N=68, number of patients in comparator arm completing the trial unclear for seven RCTs and one RCT did not have a comparator group.

  • ††N=65, excluded 11 phase 2 RCTs as they have different sample size calculation considerations.

  • ‡‡N=73, all enrolled patients reported to complete three RCTs with no missing data.

  • ITT, intention-to-treat; LOCF, last observation carried forward; N, number; NRI, non-response imputation; RCTs, randomised controlled trials.