Article Text

Interpreting trial results following use of different intention-to-treat approaches for preventing attrition bias: a meta-epidemiological study protocol
  1. Anna Dossing1,2,
  2. Simon Tarp1,
  3. Daniel E Furst3,
  4. Christian Gluud4,
  5. Joseph Beyene5,
  6. Bjarke B Hansen1,
  7. Henning Bliddal1,
  8. Robin Christensen1
  1. 1Musculoskeletal Statistics Unit, Department of Rheumatology, The Parker Institute, Copenhagen University Hospitals, Bispebjerg and Frederiksberg, Denmark
  2. 2Department of Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Medical and Health Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark
  3. 3University of California, Los Angeles, David Geffen School of Medicine, Los Angeles, USA
  4. 4Copenhagen Trial Unit, Centre for Clinical Intervention Research, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark
  5. 5Department of Clinical Epidemiology & Biostatistics, Faculty of Health Sciences, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
  1. Correspondence to Anna Dossing; anna.dossing{at}gmail.com

Abstract

Introduction When 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.

  • EPIDEMIOLOGY
  • RHEUMATOLOGY
  • CLINICAL PHARMACOLOGY

This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Supplementary materials

  • Supplementary Data

    This web only file has been produced by the BMJ Publishing Group from an electronic file supplied by the author(s) and has not been edited for content.

    Files in this Data Supplement: