Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 559

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 13 of the 13 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The use of percentage change from baseline as an outcome in a controlled trial is statistically inefficient: a simulation study

Open access
Vickers, Andrew J·2001·BMC Medical Research Methodology
DOI 10.1186/1471-2288-1-6
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Many randomized trials involve measuring a continuous outcome - such as pain, body weight or blood pressure - at baseline and after treatment. In this paper, I compare four possibilities for how such trials can be analyzed: post-treatment; change between baseline and post-treatment; percentage change between baseline and post-treatment and analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with baseline score as a covariate. The statistical power of each method was determined for a hypothetical randomized trial under a range of correlations between baseline and post-treatment scores. RESULTS: ANCOVA has the highest statistical power. Change from baseline has acceptable power when correlation between baseline and post-treatment scores is high;when correlation is low, analyzing only post-treatment scores has reasonable power. Percentage change from baseline has the lowest statistical power and was highly sensitive to changes in variance. Theoretical considerations suggest that percentage change from baseline will also fail to protect from bias in the case of baseline imbalance and will lead to an excess of trials with non-normally distributed outcome data. CONCLUSIONS: Percentage change from baseline should not be used in statistical analysis. Trialists wishing to report this statistic should use another method, such as ANCOVA, and convert the results to a percentage change by using mean baseline scores.

Overview

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 · 10.1186/1471-2288-1-6

Cites

13 of 13 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Show all 13 references

Cited by

See all 559

Metadata

Authors
Vickers, A. J.
Venue
BMC Medical Research Methodology
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2001-06-28
Volume
1
Issue
1
Pages
6-6
ISSN
1471-2288 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1186/1471-2288-1-6
OpenAlex
W1534454884
Cited by
559
References
13
FWCI
4.91
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
gold

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The use of percentage change from baseline as an outcome in a controlled trial is statistically inefficient: a simulation study. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1186/1471-2288-1-6
The paper
Vickers, A. J. (2001). The use of percentage change from baseline as an outcome in a controlled trial is statistically inefficient: a simulation study. BMC Medical Research Methodology. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-1-6

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.