GRADE guidelines 17Citation formats

  • External authors:
  • Gordon H. Guyatt
  • Shanil Ebrahim
  • Pablo Alonso-Coello
  • Bradley C Johnston
  • Matthias Briel
  • Reem A Mustafa
  • Xin Sun
  • Stephen D. Walter
  • Diane Heels-Ansdell
  • Ignacio Neumann
  • Lara A Kahale
  • Alfonso Iorio
  • Joerg Meerpohl
  • Holger J Schünemann
  • Elie A Akl

Standard

GRADE guidelines 17 : Assessing the risk of bias associated with missing participant outcome data in a body of evidence. / Guyatt, Gordon H.; Ebrahim, Shanil; Alonso-Coello, Pablo; Johnston, Bradley C; Mathioudakis, Alexander G.; Briel, Matthias; Mustafa, Reem A; Sun, Xin; Walter, Stephen D.; Heels-Ansdell, Diane; Neumann, Ignacio; Kahale, Lara A; Iorio, Alfonso; Meerpohl, Joerg; Schünemann, Holger J; Akl, Elie A.

In: Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 2017.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Harvard

Guyatt, GH, Ebrahim, S, Alonso-Coello, P, Johnston, BC, Mathioudakis, AG, Briel, M, Mustafa, RA, Sun, X, Walter, SD, Heels-Ansdell, D, Neumann, I, Kahale, LA, Iorio, A, Meerpohl, J, Schünemann, HJ & Akl, EA 2017, 'GRADE guidelines 17: Assessing the risk of bias associated with missing participant outcome data in a body of evidence' Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.05.005

APA

Guyatt, G. H., Ebrahim, S., Alonso-Coello, P., Johnston, B. C., Mathioudakis, A. G., Briel, M., ... Akl, E. A. (2017). GRADE guidelines 17: Assessing the risk of bias associated with missing participant outcome data in a body of evidence. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.05.005

Vancouver

Author

Guyatt, Gordon H. ; Ebrahim, Shanil ; Alonso-Coello, Pablo ; Johnston, Bradley C ; Mathioudakis, Alexander G. ; Briel, Matthias ; Mustafa, Reem A ; Sun, Xin ; Walter, Stephen D. ; Heels-Ansdell, Diane ; Neumann, Ignacio ; Kahale, Lara A ; Iorio, Alfonso ; Meerpohl, Joerg ; Schünemann, Holger J ; Akl, Elie A. / GRADE guidelines 17 : Assessing the risk of bias associated with missing participant outcome data in a body of evidence. In: Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 2017.

Bibtex

@article{0af385f300274aca86e9f4b44f48fdef,
title = "GRADE guidelines 17: Assessing the risk of bias associated with missing participant outcome data in a body of evidence",
abstract = "Objective: To provide GRADE guidance for assessing risk of bias across an entire body of evidence consequent on missing data for systematic reviews of both binary and continuous outcomes. Study Design and Setting: Systematic survey of published methodological research, iterative discussions, testing in systematic reviews, and feedback from the GRADE Working Group. Results: Approaches begin with a primary meta-analysis using a complete case analysis followed by sensitivity meta-analyses imputing, in each study, data for those with missing data, and then pooling across studies. For binary outcomes, we suggest use of {"}plausible worst case{"} in which review authors assume that those with missing data in treatment arms have proportionally higher event rates than those followed successfully. For continuous outcomes, imputed mean values come from other studies within the systematic review and the standard deviation (SD) from the median SDs of the control arms of all studies. Conclusions: If the results of the primary meta-analysis are robust to the most extreme assumptions viewed as plausible, one does not rate down certainty in the evidence for risk of bias due to missing participant outcome data. If the results prove not robust to plausible assumptions, one would rate down certainty in the evidence for risk of bias.",
keywords = "GRADE, Missing participant data, Risk of bias, Systematic reviews, Trials",
author = "Guyatt, {Gordon H.} and Shanil Ebrahim and Pablo Alonso-Coello and Johnston, {Bradley C} and Mathioudakis, {Alexander G.} and Matthias Briel and Mustafa, {Reem A} and Xin Sun and Walter, {Stephen D.} and Diane Heels-Ansdell and Ignacio Neumann and Kahale, {Lara A} and Alfonso Iorio and Joerg Meerpohl and Sch{\"u}nemann, {Holger J} and Akl, {Elie A}",
year = "2017",
doi = "10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.05.005",
language = "English",
journal = "Journal of Clinical Epidemiology",
issn = "0895-4356",
publisher = "Elsevier BV",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - GRADE guidelines 17

T2 - Assessing the risk of bias associated with missing participant outcome data in a body of evidence

AU - Guyatt, Gordon H.

AU - Ebrahim, Shanil

AU - Alonso-Coello, Pablo

AU - Johnston, Bradley C

AU - Mathioudakis, Alexander G.

AU - Briel, Matthias

AU - Mustafa, Reem A

AU - Sun, Xin

AU - Walter, Stephen D.

AU - Heels-Ansdell, Diane

AU - Neumann, Ignacio

AU - Kahale, Lara A

AU - Iorio, Alfonso

AU - Meerpohl, Joerg

AU - Schünemann, Holger J

AU - Akl, Elie A

PY - 2017

Y1 - 2017

N2 - Objective: To provide GRADE guidance for assessing risk of bias across an entire body of evidence consequent on missing data for systematic reviews of both binary and continuous outcomes. Study Design and Setting: Systematic survey of published methodological research, iterative discussions, testing in systematic reviews, and feedback from the GRADE Working Group. Results: Approaches begin with a primary meta-analysis using a complete case analysis followed by sensitivity meta-analyses imputing, in each study, data for those with missing data, and then pooling across studies. For binary outcomes, we suggest use of "plausible worst case" in which review authors assume that those with missing data in treatment arms have proportionally higher event rates than those followed successfully. For continuous outcomes, imputed mean values come from other studies within the systematic review and the standard deviation (SD) from the median SDs of the control arms of all studies. Conclusions: If the results of the primary meta-analysis are robust to the most extreme assumptions viewed as plausible, one does not rate down certainty in the evidence for risk of bias due to missing participant outcome data. If the results prove not robust to plausible assumptions, one would rate down certainty in the evidence for risk of bias.

AB - Objective: To provide GRADE guidance for assessing risk of bias across an entire body of evidence consequent on missing data for systematic reviews of both binary and continuous outcomes. Study Design and Setting: Systematic survey of published methodological research, iterative discussions, testing in systematic reviews, and feedback from the GRADE Working Group. Results: Approaches begin with a primary meta-analysis using a complete case analysis followed by sensitivity meta-analyses imputing, in each study, data for those with missing data, and then pooling across studies. For binary outcomes, we suggest use of "plausible worst case" in which review authors assume that those with missing data in treatment arms have proportionally higher event rates than those followed successfully. For continuous outcomes, imputed mean values come from other studies within the systematic review and the standard deviation (SD) from the median SDs of the control arms of all studies. Conclusions: If the results of the primary meta-analysis are robust to the most extreme assumptions viewed as plausible, one does not rate down certainty in the evidence for risk of bias due to missing participant outcome data. If the results prove not robust to plausible assumptions, one would rate down certainty in the evidence for risk of bias.

KW - GRADE

KW - Missing participant data

KW - Risk of bias

KW - Systematic reviews

KW - Trials

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85021808658&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.05.005

DO - 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.05.005

M3 - Article

JO - Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

JF - Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

SN - 0895-4356

ER -