Cited by 162Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsStatistical Methods in Clinical TrialsEthics in Clinical Research

Attrition in Randomized Controlled Trials for Pediatric Chronic Conditions

Karlson, C. W., Rapoff, M. A.·2009·Journal of Pediatric Psychology

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To examine attrition variables in randomized controlled trials of cognitive behavioral interventions for children with chronic illnesses. METHODS: We examined attrition rates reported on 40 randomized cognitive behavioral interventions published in six pediatric research journals, during the years 2002-2007. Intervention focus was limited to children with a chronic medical condition, such as asthma, obesity, arthritis, diabetes, cancer, sickle cell disease, and cystic fibrosis. RESULTS: Mean rate of enrollment refusal was 37% (range 0-75%). Mean attrition rate was 20% (range 0-54%) for initial follow-up and 32% (range 0-59%) for extended follow-up. Of the reviewed articles, 40% included a CONSORT diagram. CONCLUSIONS: Strategies that can be used to limit attrition include tailoring recruitment to the study population, providing personalized feedback, maintaining consistent study procedures, providing incentives, and using intensive tracking measures. There is a need for standardized definitions and reporting of attrition rates in randomized cognitive behavioral intervention studies.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/jpepsy/jsn122

Cites

76 of 76 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Karlson, C. W., & Rapoff, M. A.
Affiliations
University of Kansas (US)
Venue
Journal of Pediatric Psychology
Published
2008-12-08
Volume
34
Issue
7
Pages
782-793
ISSN
  • 0146-8693 (ISSN-L)
  • 1465-735X
OpenAlex
W2117776447
Cited by
162
References
72
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 15 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 15 · 2013: 10 · 2012: 10
FWCI
4.53
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Pediatric Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (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
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Ethics in Clinical Research
Keywords
attrition, randomized controlled trials, pediatric chronic conditions, cognitive-behavioral intervention, children, attrition rates, CONSORT flow diagram, reporting guidelines, recruitment strategies, incentives, asthma, cystic fibrosis, sickle cell disease, diabetes mellitus, obesity, arthritis, childhood cancer
MeSH terms
Analysis of Variance, Child, Chronic Disease, Follow-Up Studies, Humans, Pediatrics, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Patient Selection, Research Subjects

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