To provide Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) guidance for the consideration of study limitations (risk of bias) due to missing participant outcome data for time-to-event outcomes in intervention studies.
Study Design and Setting
We developed this guidance through an iterative process that included membership consultation, feedback, presentation, and iterative discussion at meetings of the GRADE working group.
The GRADE working group has published guidance on how to account for missing participant outcome data in binary and continuous outcomes. When analyzing time-to-event outcomes (e.g., overall survival and time-to-treatment failure) data of participants for whom the outcome of interest (e.g., death and relapse) has not been observed are dealt with through censoring. To do so, standard methods require that censored individuals are representative for those remaining in the study. Two types of censoring can be distinguished, end of study censoring and censoring because of missing data, commonly named loss to follow-up censoring. However, both types are not distinguishable with the usual information on censoring available to review authors. Dealing with individuals for whom data are missing during follow-up in the same way as individuals for whom full follow-up is available at the end of the study increases the risk of bias. Considerable differences in the treatment arms in the distribution of censoring over time (early versus late censoring), the overall degree of missing follow-up data, and the reasons why individuals were lost to follow-up may reduce the certainty in the study results. With often only very limited data available, review and guideline authors are required to make transparent and well-considered judgments when judging risk of bias of individual studies and then come to an overall grading decision for the entire body of evidence.
Concern for risk of bias resulting from censoring of participants for whom follow-up data are missing in the underlying studies of a body of evidence can be expressed in the study limitations (risk of bias) domain of the GRADE approach.
To read this article in full you will need to make a payment
Purchase one-time access:Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
One-time access price info
- For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
- For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'
Subscribe:Subscribe to Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
Already an online subscriber? Sign in
Register: Create an account
Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect
- GRADE guidelines 6. Rating the quality of evidence--imprecision.J Clin Epidemiol. 2011; 64: 1283-1293
- GRADE guidelines: 8. Rating the quality of evidence--indirectness.J Clin Epidemiol. 2011; 64: 1303-1310
- GRADE guidelines: 7. Rating the quality of evidence--inconsistency.J Clin Epidemiol. 2011; 64: 1294-1302
- GRADE guidelines: 5. Rating the quality of evidence--publication bias.J Clin Epidemiol. 2011; 64: 1277-1282
- GRADE guidelines: 9. Rating up the quality of evidence.J Clin Epidemiol. 2011; 64: 1311-1316
- GRADE guidelines: 4. Rating the quality of evidence--study limitations (risk of bias).J Clin Epidemiol. 2011; 64: 407-415
- GRADE guidelines 17: assessing the risk of bias associated with missing participant outcome data in a body of evidence.J Clin Epidemiol. 2017; 87: 14-22
- Systematic reviews do not adequately report or address missing outcome data in their analyses: a methodological survey.J Clin Epidemiol. 2018; 99: 14-23
- Nonparametric estimation from incomplete observations.J Am Stat Assoc. 1958; 53: 457-481
- Regression models and life-tables.J R Stat Soc Ser B Methodol. 1972; 34: 187-220
- Practical methods for incorporating summary time-to-event data into meta-analysis.Trials. 2007; 8: 16
- Censoring issues IN survival analysis.Annu Rev Public Health. 1997; 18: 83-104
- Survival Analysis.3 ed. Springer-Verlag, New York2012
- Tutorial in biostatistics: competing risks and multi-state models.Stat Med. 2007; 26: 2389-2430
- General right censoring and its impact on the analysis of survival data.Biometrics. 1979; 35: 139-156
- Review of the reporting of survival analyses within randomised controlled trials and the implications for meta-analysis.PLoS One. 2016; 11: e0154870
- Reporting quality of survival analyses in medical journals still needs improvement. A minimal requirements proposal.J Clin Epidemiol. 2013; 66: 1340-1346.e5
- Review of survival analyses published in cancer journals.Br J Cancer. 1995; 72: 511-518
- Survival end point reporting in randomized cancer clinical trials: a review of major journals.J Clin Oncol. 2008; 26: 3721-3726
- Reporting of loss to follow-up information in randomised controlled trials with time-to-event outcomes: a literature survey.BMC Med Res Methodol. 2011; 11: 130
- Practical Statistics for Medical Research.Chapman & Hall, London1999 (ISBN 0-412-27630-5)
- Survival plots of time-to-event outcomes in clinical trials: good practice and pitfalls.Lancet. 2002; 359: 1686-1689
- A revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomized trials2019.(Available at)https://sites.google.com/site/riskofbiastool/welcome/rob-2-0-toolDate accessed: August 6, 2019
- RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials.BMJ. 2019; 366: l4898
- Glossary: The Cochrane Colloaboration.(Available at)https://community.cochrane.org/glossaryDate: 2019Date accessed: August 6, 2019
Kahale LA, Guyatt GH, Agoritsas T, Briel M, Busse JW, Carrasco-Labra A, et al. A guidance was developed to identify participants with missing outcome data in randomized controlled trials. J Clin Epidemiol.
- Intention-to-treat principle.CMAJ. 2001; 165: 1339-1341
- Mortality of patients lost to follow-up in antiretroviral treatment programmes in resource-limited settings: systematic review and meta-analysis.PLOS ONE. 2009; 4: e5790
- Adjusting mortality for loss to follow-up: analysis of five ART programmes in sub-Saharan Africa.PLoS One. 2010; 5: e14149
- Impact of informative censoring on the Kaplan-Meier estimate of progression-free survival in phase II clinical trials.J Clin Oncol. 2014; 32: 3068-3074
- Bias of the Cox model hazard ratio.J Mod Appl Stat Methods. 2005; 4: 90-99
- Randomized trial comparing a web-mediated follow-up with routine surveillance in Lung cancer patients.J Natl Cancer Inst. 2017; 109
- Enhanced secondary analysis of survival data: reconstructing the data from published Kaplan-Meier survival curves.BMC Med Res Methodol. 2012; 12: 9
- Potentially missing data are considerably more frequent than definitely missing data: a methodological survey of 638 randomized controlled trials.J Clin Epidemiol. 2019; 106: 18-31
- Extracting summary statistics to perform meta-analyses of the published literature for survival endpoints.Stat Med. 1998; 17: 2815-2834
- Neratinib after trastuzumab-based adjuvant therapy in HER2-positive breast cancer (ExteNET): 5-year analysis of a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial.Lancet Oncol. 2017; 18: 1688-1700
- A simple test for independent censoring under the proportional hazards model.Biometrics. 1998; 54: 1176-1182
- Chapter 6: choosing effect measures and computing estimates of effect. Draft version (29 January 2019) for inclusion.in: Higgins J.P.T. Thomas J. Chandler J. Cumpston M. Li T. Page M.J. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. 2019
- Estimation of failure probabilities in the presence of competing risks: new representations of old estimators.Stat Med. 1999; 18: 695-706
- A structural approach to selection bias.Epidemiology. 2004; 15: 615-625
- A weibull model for dependent censoring.Ann Stat. 1990; 18: 1556-1577
- Relaxing the independent censoring assumption in the Cox proportional hazards model using multiple imputation.Stat Med. 2014; 33: 4681-4694
- Survival analysis using auxiliary variables via multiple imputation, with application to AIDS clinical trial data.Biometrics. 2002; 58: 37-47
- A frailty model for informative censoring.Biometrics. 2002; 58: 510-520
- A Bayesian model for time-to-event data with informative censoring.Biostatistics (Oxford, England). 2012; 13: 341-354
- Survival analysis using auxiliary variables via non-parametric multiple imputation.Stat Med. 2006; 25: 3503-3517
- Applications of a parametric model for informative censoring.Biometrics. 2004; 60: 704-714
- Sensitivity analysis for multiple right censoring processes: investigating mortality in psoriatic arthritis.Stat Med. 2011; 30: 356-367
- Sensitivity analysis for informative censoring in parametric survival models.Biostatistics (Oxford, England). 2005; 6: 77-91
- Correcting for noncompliance and dependent censoring in an AIDS clinical trial with inverse probability of censoring weighted (IPCW) log-rank tests.Biometrics. 2000; 56: 779-788
- Constructing inverse probability weights for marginal structural models.Am J Epidemiol. 2008; 168: 656-664
- Correcting for non-compliance in randomized trials using rank preserving structural failure time models.Commun Stat - Theor Methods. 1991; 20: 2609-2631
- Biometrical issues in the analysis of adverse events within the benefit assessment of drugs.Pharm Stat. 2016; 15: 292-296
- Statistical issues in the analysis of adverse events in time-to-event data.Pharm Stat. 2016; 15: 297-305
Published online: September 29, 2020
Accepted: September 2, 2020
Conflict of interest statement: None.
© 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.