CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 139Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsStatistical Methods in Clinical TrialsStatistical Methods and Bayesian Inference

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 28 of the 28 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Assessing the impact of attrition in randomized controlled trials

Hewitt, Catherine E., Kumaravel, Bharathy, Dumville, Jo C., Torgerson, David J.·2010·Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
DOI 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.01.010
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Objectives A survey of randomized controlled trials found that almost a quarter of trials had more than 10% of responses missing for the primary outcome. There are a number of ways in which data could be missing: the subject is unable to provide it, or they withdraw, or become lost to follow-up. Such attrition means that balance in baseline characteristics for those randomized may not be maintained in the subsample who has outcome data. For individual trials, if the attrition is systematic and linked to outcome, then this will result in biased estimates of the overall effect. It then follows that if such trials are combined in a meta-analysis, it will result in a biased estimate of the overall effect and be misleading. The aim of this study was to investigate the impact of attrition on baseline imbalance within individual trials and across multiple trials.Study design and setting In this article, we used individual patient data from a convenience sample of 10 trials evaluating interventions for the treatment of musculoskeletal disorders. Meta-analyses using the mean difference at baseline between the trial arms were carried out using individual patient data from these trials. The analyses were first carried out using all randomized participants and secondly only including participants with outcome data on the quality-of-life score. Meta-regression was carried out to evaluate whether the level of baseline imbalance was associated with the level of attrition.Results The overall attrition rates for the quality-of-life score ranged between 4% and 28% of the total randomized patients. All trials showed some level of differential attrition between the treatment arms, ranging from 1% to 14%. Attrition within the control group ranged from 3% to 25% and within the intervention group, it ranged from 0% to 31%. For individual trials, there was no indication that attrition altered the results in favor of either the treatment or the control. Forest plots highlighted that the attrition had some impact on the baseline imbalance for the primary outcome score as more heterogeneity was introduced (I-squared value of 0.4% for the initial data set vs. I-squared value of 16.9% for the analyzed data set). However, the standardized mean difference increased only slightly (from 0.01 to 0.03 with 95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.05, 0.10). Meta-regression showed little or no evidence of a significant dose-response relationship between the level of attrition and the baseline imbalance (coefficient 0.73, 95% CI: -0.81, 2.28).Conclusion Although, in theory, attrition can introduce selection bias in randomized trials, we did not find sufficient evidence to support this claim in our convenience sample of trials. However, the number of trials included was relatively small, which may have led to small but important differences in outcomes being missed. In addition, only 2 of 10 trials included had attrition levels greater than 15% suggesting a low level of potential bias. Meta-analyses and systematic reviews should always consider the impact of attrition on baseline imbalances and where possible any baseline imbalances in the analyzed data set and their impact on the outcomes reported.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.01.010

Cites

28 of 28 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Show all 28 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Hewitt, C. E., Kumaravel, B., Dumville, J. C., & Torgerson, D. J.
Affiliations
University of York (GB)
Corresponding author
Hewitt, Catherine E.
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2010-11
Volume
63
Issue
11
Pages
1264-1270
ISSN
0895-4356 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.01.010
OpenAlex
W2005371124
Cited by
139
References
28
Citations by year
2026: 12 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 3
FWCI
4.30
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)
Locations
  • Journal of Clinical Epidemiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Explorer (The University of Manchester) (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods and Bayesian Inference
Keywords
attrition, loss to follow-up, baseline imbalance, differential attrition, missing data, meta-analysis bias, individual patient data, musculoskeletal disorders, quality of life, heterogeneity, attrition rates
MeSH terms
Data Collection, Humans, Musculoskeletal Diseases, Patient Dropouts, Meta-Analysis as Topic, Bias, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review