The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Intent-to-Treat Analysis for Longitudinal Studies with Drop-Outs
Abstract
We consider intent-to-treat (IT) analysis of clinical trials involving longitudinal data subject to drop-out. Common methods, such as Last Observation Carried Forward imputation or incomplete-data methods based on models that assume random dropout, have serious drawbacks in the IT setting. We propose a method that involves multiple imputation of the missing values following drop-out based on an "as treated" model, using actual dose after drop-out if this is known, or imputed doses that incorporate a variety of plausible alternative assumptions if unknown. The multiply-imputed data sets are then analyzed using IT methods, were subjects are classified by randomization group rather than by the dose actually received. Results from the multiply-imputed data sets are combined using the methods of Rubin (1987, Multiple Imputation for Nonresponse in Surveys). A novel feature of the proposed method is that the models for imputation differ from the model used for the analysis of the filled-in data. The method is applied to data on a clinical trial for Tacrine in the treatment of Alzheimer's disease.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Multiple Imputation for Nonresponse in Surveys
Rubin, D. B. (1987) · Wiley Series in Probability and Statistics · doi:10.1002/9780470316696 · Cited by 20,701
Random-Effects Models for Longitudinal Data
Laird, N. M., & Ware, J. H. (1982) · Biometrics · doi:10.2307/2529876 · Cited by 8,923
Hepatotoxic Effects of Tacrine Administration in Patients With Alzheimer's Disease
Watkins, P. B. (1994) · JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association · doi:10.1001/jama.1994.03510370044030 · Cited by 829
Cited by
Multiple imputation of discrete and continuous data by fully conditional specification
van Buuren, S. (2007) · Statistical Methods in Medical Research · doi:10.1177/0962280206074463 · Cited by 2,827
A comparison of inclusive and restrictive strategies in modern missing data procedures.
Collins, L. M., Schafer, J. L., & Kam, C.-M. (2001) · Psychological Methods · doi:10.1037/1082-989x.6.4.330 · Cited by 2,389
What is meant by intention to treat analysis? Survey of published randomised controlled trials
Hollis, S., & Campbell, F. (1999) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.319.7211.670 · Cited by 2,160
Avenell, A., Broom, J., Brown, T., Poobalan, A., Aucott, L., Stearns, S., Smith, W., Jung, R., Campbell, M., & Grant, A. (2004) · Health Technology Assessment · doi:10.3310/hta8210 · Cited by 1,041
Cognitive Recovery in Socially Deprived Young Children: The Bucharest Early Intervention Project
Nelson, C. A., Zeanah, C. H., Fox, N. A., Marshall, P. J., Smyke, A. T., & Guthrie, D. (2007) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1143921 · Cited by 951
Metadata
- Authors
- Little, R., & Yau, L.
- Venue
- Biometrics
- Publisher
- JSTOR
- Published
- 1996-12
- Volume
- 52
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 1324
- ISSN
- 0006-341X (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2068817959
- Cited by
- 380
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 5.94
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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: Intent-to-Treat Analysis for Longitudinal Studies with Drop-Outs. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2307/2532847
- The paper
- Little, R., & Yau, L. (1996). Intent-to-Treat Analysis for Longitudinal Studies with Drop-Outs. Biometrics. https://doi.org/10.2307/2532847
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.