Clinician trialist rounds: 28. When RCT participants are lost to follow-up. Part 1: Why even a few can matter

Abstract

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Moher

Hopewell

Schulz

. CONSORT 2010 explanation and elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMJ 2010; 340: c869.

Guyatt

Oxman

Vist

. GRADE guidelines: 4. Rating the quality of evidence—study limitations (risk of bias). J Clin Epidemiol 2011; 64: 407–415.

Mega

Braunwald

Mohanavelu

. Rivaroxaban versus placebo in patients with acute coronary syndromes (ATLAS ACS-TIMI 46): a randomised, double-blind, phase II trial. Lancet 2009; 374: 29–38.

FDA briefing document for the Cardiovascular and Renal Drugs Advisory Committee (CRDAC), 2012, http://www.fda.gov/downloads/AdvisoryCommittees/CommitteesMeetingMaterials/Drugs/CardiovascularandRenalDrugsAdvisoryCommittee/UCM304755.pdf

Akl

Briel

You

. Potential impact on estimated treatment effects of information lost to follow-up in randomised controlled trials (LOST-IT): systematic review. BMJ 2012; 344: e2809.

Asselbergs

Diercks

Hillege

. Effects of fosinopril and pravastatin on cardiovascular events in subjects with microalbuminuria. Circulation 2004; 110: 2809–2816.

Walsh

Srinathan

McAuley

. The statistical significance of randomized controlled trial results is frequently fragile: a case for a Fragility Index. J Clin Epidemiol 2014; 67: 622–628.