ArticleBMC medical research methodology2021
How to analyze work productivity loss due to health problems in randomized controlled trials? A simulation study.
Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Association between lifestyle risk factors and presenteeism among Chinese primary care physicians: a cross-sectional study.BMJ open · 2026Article
- Article
- Development of novel DALY-based indices for assessing productivity loss and resource allocation for liver cancer in the MENA region.Population health metrics · 2025Article
- Introducing the Index of Caries Risk (ICR): A Comparative Study on a Novel Tool for Caries Risk Assessment in Pediatric Patients.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Partially different? The importance of general equilibrium in health economic evaluations: An application to nocturia.Health economics · 2023Article
- Valuation of Lost Productivity in Caregivers: A Validation Study.Frontiers in psychology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAn increasing number of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have measured the impact of interventions on work productivity loss. Productivity loss outcome is inflated at zero and max loss values. Our study was to compare the performance of five commonly used methods in analysis of productivity loss outcomes in RCTs.
methodsWe conducted a simulation study to compare Ordinary Least Squares (OLS), Negative Binominal (NB), two-part models (the non-zero part following truncated NB distribution or gamma distribution) and three-part model (the middle part between zero and max values following Beta distribution). The main number of observations each arm, N
resultsAll models performed similarly well when baseline productivity loss was set at the mean value. When baseline productivity loss was set at other values and N
conclusionsOur findings suggest that when treatment effect at any given values of one single covariate is of interest, the model selection depends on the sample size, the proportions of zero loss and max loss, and the scale parameter for the productivity loss outcome distribution between zero and max loss in each arm of RCTs.
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.