Commentary: Empirical evidence of attrition bias in clinical trials

International Journal of Epidemiology

Volumn 34, Issue 1, 2005, Pages 87-88

  Jüni, Peter ^a,b   Egger, Matthias ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BERN   (Switzerland)

^b UNIVERSITY OF BRISTOL   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

HEALTH SERVICES;

ANALYTIC METHOD; ANALYTICAL ERROR; CANCER THERAPY; CAROTID ARTERY OBSTRUCTION; CAROTID ENDARTERECTOMY; CHILDBIRTH; CLINICAL TRIAL; EMPIRICISM; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; HUMAN; INDIVIDUALIZATION; META ANALYSIS; NOTE; OUTCOMES RESEARCH; PATIENT INFORMATION; PATIENT SELECTION; PREGNANCY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS; RECURRENCE RISK; RISK REDUCTION; VALIDATION PROCESS;

BIAS (EPIDEMIOLOGY); HUMANS; META-ANALYSIS; PATIENT DROPOUTS; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS; RESEARCH DESIGN;

EID: 14844293130     PISSN: 03005771     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/ije/dyh406     Document Type: Note

References (14)

1. Fields WS, Maslenikov V, Meyer JS, Hass WK, Remington RD, Macdonald M. Joint study of extracranial arterial occlusion. V. Progress report of prognosis following surgery or nonsurgical treatment for transient cerebral ischemic attacks and cervical carotid artery lesions. JAMA 1970;211:1993-2003.
2. Bradford Hill A. Principles of Medical Statistics, 9th edn. London: The Lancet Limited, 1971.
3. Sackett DL, Gent M. Controversy in counting and attributing events in clinical trials. N Engl J Med 1979;301:1410-12.
4. Sterne JAC, Jüni P, Schulz KF, Altman DG, Bartlett C, Egger M. Statistical methods for assessing the influence of study characteristics on treatment effects in 'meta-epidemiological' research. Stat Med 2002;21:1513-24.
5. Schulz KF, Chalmers I, Hayes RJ, Altman D. Empirical evidence of bias. Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials. JAMA 1995;273: 08-12.
6. Jüni P, Altman DG, Egger M. Assessing the quality of controlled clinical trials. BMJ 2001;323:42-46.
7. Kjaergard LL, Villumsen J, Gluud C. Reported methodological quality and discrepancies between large and small randomized trials in meta-analyses. Ann Intern Med 2001;135:982-89.
8. Balk EM, Bonis PA, Moskowitz H et al. Correlation of quality measures with estimates of treatment effect in meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials. JAMA 2002;287:2973-82.
9. Schulz KF, Grimes DA. Sample size slippages in randomised trials: exclusions and the lost and wayward. Lancet 2002; 359: 81-85.
10. Hollis S, Campbell F. What is meant by intention to treat analysis? Survey of published randomised controlled trials. BMJ 1999; 319:670-74.
11. Tierney JF, Stewart LA. Investigating patient exclusion bias in meta-analysis. Int J Epidemiol 2005;34:79-87.
12. Huwiler-Müntener K, Jüni P, Junker C, Egger M. Quality of reporting of randomized trials as a measure of methodological quality. JAMA 2002;287:2801-04.
13. Chalmers I. The Cochrane Collaboration: preparing, maintaining and disseminating systematic reviews of the effects of health care. Ann NY Acad Sci 1993;703:156-63.
14. Clarke MJ, Stewart LA. Obtaining individual patient data from randomised controlled trials. In: Egger M, Davey Smith G, Altman DG (eds). Systematic Reviews in Health Care: Meta-analysis in Context, 2nd edn. London: BMJ Books, 2000.