DRG uses cookies to improve your experience on this website. Some of the cookies we use are essential for parts of the website to operate. Please be aware that if you continue without changing your cookie settings, you consent to this. For more information on our use of cookies, please review our cookie policy.

Meta-analysis is of critical importance for healthcare decision makers to assess the comparative efficacy and safety of interventions and is becoming an increasingly important component of health technology assessment. Across a wide range of therapeutic areas, many key efficacy measures are reported on a continuous scale; a key challenge for the meta-analysis of continuous outcomes is the failure of trials to report measures of uncertainty around estimates of treatment effect. The potential association of incomplete reporting of outcomes and non-statistical significance of trial results is particularly concerning for meta-analysis. The omission of studies from meta-analysis due to incomplete reporting may introduce bias and reduce statistical power. We have recently published the first review of methods to deal with missing variance data focusing on a single therapeutic area (1).


We systematically searched electronic databases for publications reporting meta-analyses of pharmaceutical interventions for type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) populations. The review was limited to meta-analyses published after 2013 to ensure it was representative of the most current practices used by authors to address missing variance data in meta-analysis of continuous outcomes.


We found that a large proportion of recently reported meta-analysis publications in T2DM fail to report approaches to dealing with missing variance data for continuous outcomes. The trial-level imputation methods identified in this review can be considered as relatively basic. Where reported, details of approaches to imputation were insufficient and inconsistent across studies, with only a small minority reporting sensitivity analyses to assess the robustness of the results to the methods of imputation.


This research highlights a lack of standardisation of methods to address missing variance data in meta-analysis. We discourage authors from using a no-imputation approach unless it is inappropriate, such as in cases where a large proportion of the data has missing variances. A systematic approach to imputation is recommended which should include sensitivity analyses and authors are encouraged to improve the quality of reporting of their meta-analyses.


For further information on any aspects of meta-analysis please contact our in-house experts by emailing Access@TeamDRG.com



  1. Batson S, Burton H. A Systematic Review of Methods for Handling Missing Variance Data in Meta-Analyses of Interventions in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus. PLoS One. 2016;11(10):e0164827.