Sources and handling of losses to follow-up in parallel-group randomized clinical trials in dogs and cats: 63 trials (2000-2005)

American Journal of Veterinary Research

Volumn 68, Issue 7, 2007, Pages 694-698

  Brown, Dorothy Cimino ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ANIMAL CARE; ANIMAL HEALTH; ARTICLE; CAT; CLINICAL RESEARCH; DATA ANALYSIS; DEATH; DOG; EXPERIMENTAL ANIMAL; FOLLOW UP; NONHUMAN; RANDOM SAMPLE; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS; VETERINARY MEDICINE;

ANIMALS; CAT DISEASES; CATS; DOG DISEASES; DOGS; FOLLOW-UP STUDIES; PATIENT DROPOUTS; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS; SELECTION BIAS;

ANIMALIA; CANIS FAMILIARIS;

EID: 34547407202     PISSN: 00029645     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2460/ajvr.68.7.694     Document Type: Article

References (17)

1. Brown DC. Control of selection bias in parallel-group controlled clinical trials in dogs and cats: 97 trials (2000-2005). J Am Vet Med Assoc 2006;229:990-993.
2. Lachin JM. Statistical considerations in the intent-to-treat principle. Control Clin Trials 2000;21:167-189.
3. Nich C, Carroll KM. Intention-to-treat meets missing data: implications of alternate strategies for analyzing clinical trials data. Drug Alcohol Depend 2002;68:121-130.
4. Tierney JF, Stewart LA. Investigating patient exclusion bias in meta-analysis. Int J Epidemiol 2005;34:79-87.
5. Grasdal A. The performance of sample selection estimators to control for attrition bias. Health Econ 2001;10:385-398.
6. Streiner D, Geddes J. Intention to treat analysis in clinical trials when there are missing data. Evid Based Ment Health 2001;4:70-71.
7. Norman G, Streiner D. Biostatistics: the bare essentials. 2nd ed. Toronto: BC Decker, 2000;260-267.
8. Unnebrink K, Windeler J. Intention-to-treat: methods for dealing with missing values in clinical trials of progressively deteriorating diseases. Stat Med 2001;20:3931-3946.
9. STATA. User's guide. 8th ed. College Station, Tex: STATA Press, 2003.
10. Tang L, Song J, Belin TR, et al. A comparison of imputation methods in a longitudinal randomized clinical trial. Stat Med 2005; 24:2111-2128.
11. Lee YJ, Ellenberg JH, Hirtz DG, et al. Analysis of clinical trials by treatment actually received: is it really an option? Stat Med 1991;10:1595-1605.
12. Moher D, Schulz KF, Altman D, et al. The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomized trials. JAMA 2001;285:1987-1991.
13. Montori VM, Guyatt GH. Intention-to-treat principle. Can Med Assoc J 2001;165:1339-1341.
14. DeMets DL. Statistical issues in interpreting clinical trials. J Intern Med 2004;255:529-537.
15. Ware JH. Interpreting incomplete data in studies of diet and weight loss. N Engl J Med 2003;348:2136-2137.
16. Gadbury GL, Coffey CS, Allison DB. Modem statistical methods for handling missing repeated measurements in obesity trial data: beyond LOCF. Obes Rev 2003;4:175-184.
17. Mallinckrodt CH, Clark WS, David SR. Accounting for dropout bias using mixed-effects models. J Biopharm Stat 2001;11:9-21.