The effects of excluding patients from the analysis in randomised controlled trials: meta-epidemiological study
Open Access
- 7 September 2009
- Vol. 339 (sep07 1), b3244
- https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.b3244
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine whether excluding patients from the analysis of randomised trials are associated with biased estimates of treatment effects and higher heterogeneity between trials. DESIGN: Meta-epidemiological study based on a collection of meta-analyses of randomised trials. DATA SOURCES: 14 meta-analyses including 167 trials that compared therapeutic interventions with placebo or non-intervention control in patients with osteoarthritis of the hip or knee and used patient reported pain as an outcome. METHODS: Effect sizes were calculated from differences in means of pain intensity between groups at the end of follow-up, divided by the pooled standard deviation. Trials were combined by using random effects meta-analysis. Estimates of treatment effects were compared between trials with and trials without exclusions from the analysis, and the impact of restricting meta-analyses to trials without exclusions was assessed. RESULTS: 39 trials (23%) had included all patients in the analysis. In 128 trials (77%) some patients were excluded from the analysis. Effect sizes from trials with exclusions tended to be more beneficial than those from trials without exclusions (difference -0.13, 95% confidence interval -0.29 to 0.04). However, estimates of bias between individual meta-analyses varied considerably (tau(2)=0.07). Tests of interaction between exclusions from the analysis and estimates of treatment effects were positive in five meta-analyses. Stratified analyses indicated that differences in effect sizes between trials with and trials without exclusions were more pronounced in meta-analyses with high between trial heterogeneity, in meta-analyses with large estimated treatment benefits, and in meta-analyses of complementary medicine. Restriction of meta-analyses to trials without exclusions resulted in smaller estimated treatment benefits, larger P values, and considerable decreases in between trial heterogeneity. CONCLUSION: Excluding patients from the analysis in randomised trials often results in biased estimates of treatment effects, but the extent and direction of bias is unpredictable. Results from intention to treat analyses should always be described in reports of randomised trials. In systematic reviews, the influence of exclusions from the analysis on estimated treatment effects should routinely be assessed.This publication has 42 references indexed in Scilit:
- Correction: Reported Methodologic Quality and Discrepancies between Large and Small Randomized Trials in Meta-AnalysesAnnals of Internal Medicine, 2008
- Correlation of Quality Measures With Estimates of Treatment Effect in Meta-analyses of Randomized Controlled TrialsJama-Journal Of The American Medical Association, 2002
- Quality of Reporting of Randomized Trials as a Measure of Methodologic QualityJama-Journal Of The American Medical Association, 2002
- Statistical methods for assessing the influence of study characteristics on treatment effects in ‘meta‐epidemiological’ researchStatistics in Medicine, 2002
- The Case of the Missing Data: Methods of Dealing with Dropouts and other Research VagariesThe Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 2002
- Meta-analyses involving cross-over trials: methodological issuesInternational Journal of Epidemiology, 2002
- Reported Methodologic Quality and Discrepancies between Large and Small Randomized Trials in Meta-AnalysesAnnals of Internal Medicine, 2001
- Systematic reviews in health care: Assessing the quality of controlled clinical trialsBMJ, 2001
- Value of Flow Diagrams in Reports of Randomized Controlled TrialsJama-Journal Of The American Medical Association, 2001
- The CONSORT Statement: Revised Recommendations for Improving the Quality of Reports of Parallel-Group Randomized TrialsAnnals of Internal Medicine, 2001