Skip Navigation


IJE Advance Access originally published online on January 13, 2005
International Journal of Epidemiology 2005 34(1):87-88; doi:10.1093/ije/dyh406
This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow A correction has been published
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
34/1/87    most recent
dyh406v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (2)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Jüni, P.
Right arrow Articles by Egger, M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Jüni, P.
Right arrow Articles by Egger, M.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

IJE vol.34 no.1 © International Epidemiological Association 2005; all rights reserved.

Commentary

Commentary: Empirical evidence of attrition bias in clinical trials

Peter Jüni1,2 and Matthias Egger1,2,*

1 Department of Social and Preventive Medicine, University of Berne, Finkenhubelweg 11, CH-3012 Bern, Switzerland
2 MRC Health Services Research Collaboration, Department of Social Medicine, University of Bristol, Canynge Hall, Whiteladies Road, Bristol BS8 2PR, UK

* Corresponding author. Department of Social and Preventive Medicine, University of Berne, Finkenhubelweg 11, CH-3012 Bern, Switzerland. E-mail: egger@ispm.unibe.ch

The first 10% of the full text of this article appears below.

Excluding the 5 patients who died and the 10 who had permanent postoperative deficits, there remained 79 patients available for follow-up and at risk of subsequent persistent stroke and death.

This is how, in 1970, Fields and colleagues analysed the data from the Joint Study of Extracranial Arterial Occlusion, which had randomly allocated patients with bilateral carotid stenosis to carotid endarterectomy or medical treatment.1 Among the patients who had survived surgery and were ‘available for follow-up’, a 26% reduction in the risk of recurrent transient ischaemic attacks, stroke, or death . . . [Full Text of this Article]


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 BMJHome page
E. Nuesch, S. Trelle, S. Reichenbach, A. W S Rutjes, E. Burgi, M. Scherer, D. G Altman, and P. Juni
The effects of excluding patients from the analysis in randomised controlled trials: meta-epidemiological study
BMJ, September 7, 2009; 339(sep07_1): b3244 - b3244.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]