Author
Listed:
- Mai A Elobeid
- Miguel A Padilla
- Theresa McVie
- Olivia Thomas
- David W Brock
- Bret Musser
- Kaifeng Lu
- Christopher S Coffey
- Renee A Desmond
- Marie-Pierre St-Onge
- Kishore M Gadde
- Steven B Heymsfield
- David B Allison
Abstract
Background: Dropouts and missing data are nearly-ubiquitous in obesity randomized controlled trails, threatening validity and generalizability of conclusions. Herein, we meta-analytically evaluate the extent of missing data, the frequency with which various analytic methods are employed to accommodate dropouts, and the performance of multiple statistical methods. Methodology/Principal Findings: We searched PubMed and Cochrane databases (2000–2006) for articles published in English and manually searched bibliographic references. Articles of pharmaceutical randomized controlled trials with weight loss or weight gain prevention as major endpoints were included. Two authors independently reviewed each publication for inclusion. 121 articles met the inclusion criteria. Two authors independently extracted treatment, sample size, drop-out rates, study duration, and statistical method used to handle missing data from all articles and resolved disagreements by consensus. In the meta-analysis, drop-out rates were substantial with the survival (non-dropout) rates being approximated by an exponential decay curve (e−λt) where λ was estimated to be .0088 (95% bootstrap confidence interval: .0076 to .0100) and t represents time in weeks. The estimated drop-out rate at 1 year was 37%. Most studies used last observation carried forward as the primary analytic method to handle missing data. We also obtained 12 raw obesity randomized controlled trial datasets for empirical analyses. Analyses of raw randomized controlled trial data suggested that both mixed models and multiple imputation performed well, but that multiple imputation may be more robust when missing data are extensive. Conclusion/Significance: Our analysis offers an equation for predictions of dropout rates useful for future study planning. Our raw data analyses suggests that multiple imputation is better than other methods for handling missing data in obesity randomized controlled trials, followed closely by mixed models. We suggest these methods supplant last observation carried forward as the primary method of analysis.
Suggested Citation
Mai A Elobeid & Miguel A Padilla & Theresa McVie & Olivia Thomas & David W Brock & Bret Musser & Kaifeng Lu & Christopher S Coffey & Renee A Desmond & Marie-Pierre St-Onge & Kishore M Gadde & Steven B, 2009.
"Missing Data in Randomized Clinical Trials for Weight Loss: Scope of the Problem, State of the Field, and Performance of Statistical Methods,"
PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 4(8), pages 1-11, August.
Handle:
RePEc:plo:pone00:0006624
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0006624
Download full text from publisher
Citations
Citations are extracted by the
CitEc Project, subscribe to its
RSS feed for this item.
Cited by:
- Franklin, Jessica M. & Schneeweiss, Sebastian & Polinski, Jennifer M. & Rassen, Jeremy A., 2014.
"Plasmode simulation for the evaluation of pharmacoepidemiologic methods in complex healthcare databases,"
Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 219-226.
- Zhaohui Cui & June Stevens & Kimberly P Truesdale & Donglin Zeng & Simone French & Penny Gordon-Larsen, 2016.
"Prediction of Body Mass Index Using Concurrently Self-Reported or Previously Measured Height and Weight,"
PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(11), pages 1-10, November.
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0006624. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.