IJE Advance Access published online on November 23, 2004
International Journal of Epidemiology, doi:10.1093/ije/dyh300
© 2004 by International Epidemiological Association
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1 Meta-analysis Group, MRC Clinical Trials Unit, 222 Euston Road, London, NW1 2DA, UK
* To whom correspondence should be addressed. Background Trial investigators frequently exclude patients from trial analyses which may bias estimates of the effect of treatment. Combining these estimates in a meta-analysis could aggregate any such biases. Methods To investigate how excluding patients from trials can affect the results of both trials and meta-analyses, we used 14 meta-analyses of individual patient data (IPD) that addressed therapeutic questions in cancer. These included 133 randomized controlled trials (RCT) and 21 905 patients. We explored whether exclusions were related to trial characteristics and categorized the reasons for exclusions. For each RCT and meta-analysis, we compared results of an intention-to-treat analysis of all randomized patients with an analysis based on those patients included in the investigators' analysis. Results In all, 92 trials (69%) excluded between 0.3 and 38% of patients randomized. Trials excluding patients tended to be older and larger than those that did not. Most patients were excluded because of ineligibility or protocol violations. Exclusions varied substantially by meta-analysis, more patients tending to be excluded from the treatment arm. Comparing trial analyses there was no clear indication that exclusion of patients altered the results more in favour of either treatment or control. However, comparing meta-analysis results, there was a tendency for those based on ‘included’ patients to favour the research treatment (P = 0.03). Inconsistency of trial results was often increased as a result of the investigators' exclusions. Conclusions Trials, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses may be prone to bias associated with post-randomization exclusion of patients. Wherever possible, the level of such exclusions should be taken into account when assessing the potential for bias in trials, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses. Ideally, trials, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses should be based on all randomized patients.
Original paper
Investigating patient exclusion bias in meta-analysis
Jayne F Tierney, E-mail: j.tierney{at}ctu.mrc.ac.uk
Abstract
A Commentary has been commissioned to accompany this paper and will appear in the print issue with this article.
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
Related articles in Int. J. Epidemiol.:
- Commentary: Empirical evidence of attrition bias in clinical trials
- Peter Jüni and Matthias Egger
Int. J. Epidemiol. 2005 10.1093/ije/dyh406.[Abstract]
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  L. Hartling, M. Ospina, Y. Liang, D. M Dryden, N. Hooton, J. Krebs Seida, and T. P Klassen Risk of bias versus quality assessment of randomised controlled trials: cross sectional study BMJ, October 19, 2009; 339(oct19_1): b4012 - b4012. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
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]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 S. Sud and J. Douketis The devil is in the details...or not? A primer on individual patient data meta-analysis Evid. Based Med., August 1, 2009; 14(4): 100 - 101. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
L. Wood, M. Egger, L. L. Gluud, K. F Schulz, P. Juni, D. G Altman, C. Gluud, R. M Martin, A. J G Wood, and J. A C Sterne Empirical evidence of bias in treatment effect estimates in controlled trials with different interventions and outcomes: meta-epidemiological study BMJ, March 15, 2008; 336(7644): 601 - 605. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 J-E C Holty and M K Gould When in doubt should we cut it out? The role of surgery in non-small cell lung cancer. Thorax, July 1, 2006; 61(7): 554 - 556. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. C Dumville, D. J Torgerson, and C. E Hewitt Reporting attrition in randomised controlled trials BMJ, April 22, 2006; 332(7547): 969 - 971. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 S. R. MESHNICK and A. P. ALKER AMODIAQUINE AND COMBINATION CHEMOTHERAPY FOR MALARIA Am J Trop Med Hyg, November 1, 2005; 73(5): 821 - 823. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|