ArticleBMJ open2014
Interpreting trial results following use of different intention-to-treat approaches for preventing attrition bias: a meta-epidemiological study protocol.
Article in BMJ open, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Risk of bias and reporting practices in studies comparing VOJournal of sport and health science · 2022Pooled it
- Cognitive Behavioural Therapy for Insomnia Monotherapy in Patients with Medical or Psychiatric Comorbidities: a Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.The Psychiatric quarterly · 2020Pooled it
- Empirical Evidence of Study Design Biases in Randomized Trials: Systematic Review of Meta-Epidemiological Studies.PloS one · 2016Pooled it
- Chemoprevention for malaria with monthly intermittent preventive treatment with dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine in pregnant women living with HIV on daily co-trimoxazole in Kenya and Malawi: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.Lancet (London, England) · 2024Trial
- Effect of monthly intermittent preventive treatment with dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine with and without azithromycin versus monthly sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine on adverse pregnancy outcomes in Africa: a double-blind randomised, partly placebo-controlled trial.Lancet (London, England) · 2023Trial
- Trial
- TenofovirWorld journal of gastroenterology · 2017Trial
- Biological tapering is cost-effective in patients with inflammatory arthritis in the biosimilar era: secondary analyses on the randomised BIODOPT trial.EULAR rheumatology open · 2025Article
- Use of a modified mandibular splint to reduce nocturnal symptoms in persons with post-traumatic stress disorder.International dental journal · 2020Article
- Combining Stochastic Resonance Vibration With Exergaming for Motor-Cognitive Training in Long-Term Care; A Sham-Control Randomized Controlled Pilot Trial.Frontiers in medicine · 2020Article
- Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionWhen participants drop out of randomised clinical trials, as frequently happens, the intention-to-treat (ITT) principle does not apply, potentially leading to attrition bias. Data lost from patient dropout/lack of follow-up are statistically addressed by imputing, a procedure prone to bias. Deviations from the original definition of ITT are referred to as modified intention-to-treat (mITT). As yet, the impact of the potential bias associated with mITT has not been assessed. Our objective is to investigate potential bias and disadvantages of performing mITT and evaluate possible concerns when executing different mITT approaches in meta-analyses. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Using meta-epidemiology on randomised trials considered less prone to bias (ie, good internal validity) and assessing biological or targeted agents in patients with rheumatoid arthritis, we will meta-analyse data from 10 biological and targeted drugs based on collections of trials that would correspond to 10 individual meta-analyses. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study will enhance transparency for evaluating mITT treatment effects described in meta-analyses. The intended audience will include healthcare researchers, policymakers and clinicians. Results of the study will be disseminated by peer-review publication. PROTOCOL REGISTRATION: In PROSPERO CRD42013006702, 11. December 2013.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.