Missing data in randomized clinical trials for weight loss: scope of the problem, state of the field, and performance of statistical methods.
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.


RESULTS
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(-lambdat)) where lambda 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.


CONCLUSIONS
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.
Elobeid
Mai A
MA
Department of Biostatistics, School of Public Health, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama, United States of America.
Padilla
Miguel A
MA
McVie
Theresa
T
Thomas
Olivia
O
Brock
David W
DW
Musser
Bret
B
Lu
Kaifeng
K
Coffey
Christopher S
CS
Desmond
Renee A
RA
St-Onge
Marie-Pierre
MP
Gadde
Kishore M
KM
Heymsfield
Steven B
SB
Allison
David B
DB
D003627:Data Interpretation, Statistical; D006801:Humans; D009765:Obesity / Q000628:therapy*; D016032:Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; D015431:Weight Loss
Eur J Clin Nutr. 2003 Apr;57(4):514-22
12700612
Nutr J. 2003 Nov 18;2:14
14624699
JAMA. 1998 Nov 11;280(18):1596-600
9820262
Obes Rev. 2003 Aug;4(3):175-84
12916818
JAMA. 2003 Jan 8;289(2):187-93
12517229
Int J Obes (Lond). 2006 Jul;30(7):1138-42
16418753
JAMA. 2006 Apr 5;295(13):1549-55
16595758
N Engl J Med. 2005 Nov 17;353(20):2111-20
16291981
J Am Diet Assoc. 2007 Mar;107(3):500-5
17324670
Oncogene. 2004 Aug 23;23(38):6365-78
15322511
J Am Diet Assoc. 2004 Oct;104(10):1586-8
15389418
Cell Metab. 2006 Oct;4(4):275-82
17011500
JAMA. 2006 Feb 15;295(7):826-8
16478906
JAMA. 2003 Apr 9;289(14):1820-5
12684361
Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 1995 Sep;19(9):653-8
8574276
Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 2004 Nov;28(11):1411-9
15356670
Stat Med. 2000 Apr 30;19(8):1101-14
10790683