Reporting attrition in randomised controlled trials
Top Cited Papers
- 20 April 2006
- Vol. 332 (7547) , 969-971
- https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.332.7547.969
Abstract
Effects of attrition Attrition can introduce bias if the characteristics of people lost to follow-up differ between the randomised groups. In terms of bias, this loss is important only if the differing characteristic is correlated with the trial's outcome measures. However, attrition is not a black and white issue—there is no specific level of loss to follow-up at which attrition related bias becomes acknowledged as a problem. Schulz and Grimes argue that loss to follow-up of 5% or lower is usually of little concern, whereas a loss of 20% or greater means that readers should be concerned about the possibility of bias; losses between 5% and 20% may still be a source of bias.3 For the purposes of this article we will not differentiate between loss to follow-up and missing data. We have also not considered exclusions by trial investigators. Although exclusion is justified in some cases,3 generally it is ill advised.1 2Keywords
This publication has 9 references indexed in Scilit:
- Adequacy and reporting of allocation concealment: review of recent trials published in four general medical journalsBMJ, 2005
- Investigating patient exclusion bias in meta-analysisInternational Journal of Epidemiology, 2004
- Randomized controlled trial of hip protectors among women living in the communityOsteoporosis International, 2004
- Post-randomisation exclusions: the intention to treat principle and excluding patients from analysisBMJ, 2002
- The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomised trialsThe Lancet, 2001
- What is meant by intention to treat analysis? Survey of published randomised controlled trialsBMJ, 1999
- Understanding controlled trials: Baseline imbalance in randomised controlled trialsBMJ, 1999
- Testing for baseline balance in clinical trialsStatistics in Medicine, 1994
- Covariate imbalance and random allocation in clinical trialsStatistics in Medicine, 1989