4.5 Review

Handling of Missing Outcome Data in Traumatic Brain Injury Research: A Systematic Review

Journal

JOURNAL OF NEUROTRAUMA
Volume 36, Issue 19, Pages 2743-2752

Publisher

MARY ANN LIEBERT, INC
DOI: 10.1089/neu.2018.6216

Keywords

follow-up; missing data; multiple imputation; traumatic brain injury

Funding

  1. Fp7 program of the European Union [602150]
  2. Academy of Medical Sciences/The Health Foundation Clinician Scientist Fellowship
  3. National Institute of Health Research (NIHR) Academic Clinical Fellowship
  4. Wellcome Trust PhD Training Fellowship for Clinicians
  5. NIHR Biomedical Research Center based at the Cambridge University Hospitals' NHS Foundation Trust
  6. University of Cambridge

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Traumatic brain injury (TBI) research commonly measures long-term functional outcome, but studies often suffer from missing data as patients are lost to follow-up. This review assesses the extent and handling of missing outcome data in the TBI literature and provides a practical guide for future research. Relevant electronic databases were searched from January 1, 2012 to October 27, 2017 for TBI studies that used the Glasgow Outcome Scale or Glasgow Outcome Scale-Extended (GOS/GOSE) as an outcome measure. Studies were screened and data extracted in line with Cochrane guidance. A total of 195 studies, 21 interventional, 174 observational, with 104,688 patients were included. Using the reported follow-up rates in a mixed model, on average 91% of patients were predicted to return to follow-up at 6 months post-injury, 84% at 1 year, and 69% at 2 years. However, 36% of studies provided insufficient information to determine the number of subjects at each time-point. Of 139 studies that did report missing outcome data, only 50% attempted to identify why data were missing, with just 4 reporting their assumption on the missingness mechanism. The handling of missing data was heterogeneous, with the most common method being its exclusion from analysis. These results confirm substantial variability in the standard of reporting and handling of missing outcome data in TBI research. We conclude that practical guidance is needed to facilitate meaningful and accurate study interpretation, and therefore propose a framework for the handling of missing outcome data in future TBI research.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available