Background: To assess the consequence of different degrees of missing primary endpoint data for randomized controlled trials and to find the influence factors.
Methods: PubMed, Cochrane Library, EMBASE and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched up to Nov 30, 2023. We included trials of the drug-coated balloon/drug-eluted stent with angiographic outcomes as the primary endpoint. The tipping-point analysis was used to deal with the missing data for the primary endpoint. The inconsistency rate, tipping-point standardized effect size (SES) and tipping-point ratio were used to assess the result robustness.
Results: A total of 101 trials were included, which had 109 trial comparisons. Among them, 89 (81.7%) comparisons had superior/non-inferior conclusions (H0 rejected); 85 (78.0%) comparisons had a missing rate of ≥10%, and 30 (27.5%) comparisons had a missing rate of ≥20%. For H0 rejected comparisons with a missing rate of ≥10%, the median of inconsistency rate, tipping-point SES and tipping-point ratio was 32.2% (IQR 19.7%, 45.4%), 0.90 (IQR 0.17, 1.79) and -1.53 (IQR -2.43, -0.39). A higher missing rate and a larger (worse) observed-target SES were associated with a more unreliable result.
Conclusion: A high dropout rate and inflated target effect size could cause an unreliable result. We emphasize a robust evaluation of the results for clinical trials with missing data for the primary endpoint.
Keywords: missing data; result robustness; tipping-point analysis.
Missing data for the primary outcome has a great impact on the interpretation of clinical trials. This study included 101 randomized controlled trials of the drug-coated balloon or drug-eluted stent with an angiographic primary endpoint and used three indicators to assess the result robustness. This study found that 78.0% trial comparisons had a missing rate of ≥10%, and 27.5% comparisons had a missing rate of ≥20%; The conclusions of some clinical trials may change after dealing with the missing data; A higher missing rate and an inflated target effect size were associated with a more unreliable result.
© 2025 Lang et al.