Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39543512›Full record

ReviewBMC psychiatry2024

Missing outcome data in randomised clinical trials of psychological interventions: a review of published trial reports in major psychiatry journals.

Sophie Juul, Pascal Faltermeier, Johanne Juul Petersen, Markus Harboe Olsen, Rebecca Kjaer Andersen, Caroline Barkholt Kamp, Faiza Siddiqui, Sebastian Simonsen, Lawrence Mbuagbaw, Lehana Thabane and 1 more

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in BMC psychiatry, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Sophie JuulCopenhagen Trial Unit, Centre for Clinical Intervention Research, The Capital Region, Copenhagen University Hospital, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark. sophie.juul@ctu.dk.
Pascal FaltermeierCopenhagen Trial Unit, Centre for Clinical Intervention Research, The Capital Region, Copenhagen University Hospital, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Johanne Juul PetersenCopenhagen Trial Unit, Centre for Clinical Intervention Research, The Capital Region, Copenhagen University Hospital, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Markus Harboe OlsenCopenhagen Trial Unit, Centre for Clinical Intervention Research, The Capital Region, Copenhagen University Hospital, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Rebecca Kjaer AndersenCopenhagen Trial Unit, Centre for Clinical Intervention Research, The Capital Region, Copenhagen University Hospital, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Caroline Barkholt KampCopenhagen Trial Unit, Centre for Clinical Intervention Research, The Capital Region, Copenhagen University Hospital, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Faiza SiddiquiCopenhagen Trial Unit, Centre for Clinical Intervention Research, The Capital Region, Copenhagen University Hospital, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Sebastian SimonsenStolpegaard Psychotherapy Centre, Mental Health Services in the Capital Region of Denmark, Gentofte, Denmark.
Lawrence MbuagbawSt Joseph's Healthcare Hamilton, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Lehana ThabaneSt Joseph's Healthcare Hamilton, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Janus Christian JakobsenCopenhagen Trial Unit, Centre for Clinical Intervention Research, The Capital Region, Copenhagen University Hospital, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMissing outcome data can pose a serious threat to the validity of randomised clinical trial results. We aimed to study the extent of missing outcome data in randomised clinical trials of psychological interventions.

methodsWe performed a retrospective study of randomised clinical trial reports of psychological interventions published in World Psychiatry, JAMA Psychiatry, Lancet Psychiatry, American Journal of Psychiatry, British Journal of Psychiatry, or Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics from 2017 to 2022. We assessed the proportion of missing outcome data, whether missing data patterns differed between types of outcomes, participants, intervention lengths, and psychological intervention types, how missing outcome data were handled in the statistical analyses, and whether trialists discussed missing outcome data in the discussion section of the manuscript.

resultsWe identified 182 randomised clinical trials (233 primary outcomes), of which 206 outcomes (88.4%) were assessed at high risk of bias due to missing data. The overall mean percentage of missing outcome data was 18.3% (95% confidence interval (CI): 16.7-20%) for all outcomes. The percentages of missing data were 18.9% (95% CI: 17.1-20.6%; 180 outcomes) for symptom severity scales and 1.8% (95% CI: 2.3-3.3%; 6 outcomes) for 'hard' binary outcomes. Trials including participants with borderline personality disorder had the highest percentage of missing outcome data (33.1%; 95% CI: 22.3-43.9%) compared with other psychiatric disorders. Fisher's exact test showed that intervention lengths and psychological intervention types were associated with the proportion of missing outcome data (p < 0.001), but there were no clear patterns.

conclusionMissing outcome data is a considerable problem in randomised clinical trials of psychological interventions, and trialists should consider the corresponding methodological limitations in the design and analysis to reduce the risk of bias due to missing outcome data. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Not applicable.

Indexed as

PsychiatryRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicHumansMental DisordersOutcome Assessment, Health CarePeriodicals as TopicPsychosocial InterventionPsychotherapyRetrospective StudiesMissing outcome dataPsychological interventionsRandomised clinical trials

Identifiers

PMID39543512
PMCPMC11566980

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.