ArticleJournal of biopharmaceutical statistics2018
Differential losses to follow-up that are outcome-dependent can vitiate a clinical trial: Simulation results.
Article in Journal of biopharmaceutical statistics, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Longitudinal voice monitoring in a decentralized Bring Your Own Device trial for respiratory illness detection.NPJ digital medicine · 2025Article
- Using observational study data as an external control group for a clinical trial: an empirical comparison of methods to account for longitudinal missing data.BMC medical research methodology · 2022Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
Abstract
Loss to follow-up (LTFU) in clinical trials represents a potential threat to their soundness that may not be adequately recognized. We consider a log-rank test in a trial with two arms, experimental and control, and with a single unfavorable binary endpoint such as death. Commonly, one applies censoring to patients with LTFU. That approach is valid if LTFU is independent of outcome, but can lead to bias otherwise. Unfortunately, there is no statistical test for independence, so the legitimacy of the approach rests on unverifiable assumptions. For two cases, we evaluate the impact of the approach based on simulations that use reasonable models for outcome-dependent LTFU. In each case, LTFU in one arm disproportionately suppresses recognition of relatively early deaths or other outcomes, thus producing bias favoring that arm. The first case has extra LTFU in the experimental arm and the treatment has no benefit. The second case has extra LTFU in the control arm and the treatment is effective. The simulation results show severe inflation of Type I error in the first case and major loss of power in the second case. Remedies for LTFU are scarce but include avoiding it in the first place where possible.
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.