Investigating patient exclusion bias in meta-analysis - PubMed (original) (raw)
doi: 10.1093/ije/dyh300. Epub 2004 Nov 23.
Affiliations
- PMID: 15561753
- DOI: 10.1093/ije/dyh300
Investigating patient exclusion bias in meta-analysis
Jayne F Tierney et al. Int J Epidemiol. 2005 Feb.
Abstract
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.
Comment in
- Commentary: Empirical evidence of attrition bias in clinical trials.
Jüni P, Egger M. Jüni P, et al. Int J Epidemiol. 2005 Feb;34(1):87-8. doi: 10.1093/ije/dyh406. Epub 2005 Jan 13. Int J Epidemiol. 2005. PMID: 15649954 No abstract available.
Similar articles
- Assessing the impact of attrition in randomized controlled trials.
Hewitt CE, Kumaravel B, Dumville JC, Torgerson DJ; Trial attrition study group. Hewitt CE, et al. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010 Nov;63(11):1264-70. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.01.010. Epub 2010 Jun 22. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010. PMID: 20573482 - Errors in the conduct of systematic reviews of pharmacological interventions for irritable bowel syndrome.
Ford AC, Guyatt GH, Talley NJ, Moayyedi P. Ford AC, et al. Am J Gastroenterol. 2010 Feb;105(2):280-8. doi: 10.1038/ajg.2009.658. Epub 2009 Nov 17. Am J Gastroenterol. 2010. PMID: 19920807 Review. - Meta-analysis of individual patient data versus aggregate data from longitudinal clinical trials.
Jones AP, Riley RD, Williamson PR, Whitehead A. Jones AP, et al. Clin Trials. 2009 Feb;6(1):16-27. doi: 10.1177/1740774508100984. Clin Trials. 2009. PMID: 19254930 - Evidence from crossover trials: empirical evaluation and comparison against parallel arm trials.
Lathyris DN, Trikalinos TA, Ioannidis JP. Lathyris DN, et al. Int J Epidemiol. 2007 Apr;36(2):422-30. doi: 10.1093/ije/dym001. Epub 2007 Feb 14. Int J Epidemiol. 2007. PMID: 17301102 Review.
Cited by
- Challenges in assessing the efficacy of suicide prevention and mental health education initiatives.
da Silva ALS, da Silva Barbosa JP, Andrade AGM, Nogueira GN, de Alcantara Brandao Junior E, de Araújo MB, de Matos E Souza FG, Bisol LW. da Silva ALS, et al. Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2024 Apr 15. doi: 10.1007/s00787-024-02394-x. Online ahead of print. Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2024. PMID: 38619627 No abstract available. - Increasing character strength knowledge, interest, and skill: preliminary evidence for a collaborative and multimethod assessment procedure.
Klibert J, Simpson M, Weiss B, Yancey CT, Pritulsky C, Luna A, Houseman H, Samawi H. Klibert J, et al. Front Psychol. 2023 Jul 27;14:1179052. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1179052. eCollection 2023. Front Psychol. 2023. PMID: 37575450 Free PMC article. - Effect of age, sex, and morbidity count on trial attrition: meta-analysis of individual participant level data from phase 3/4 industry funded clinical trials.
Lees JS, Hanlon P, Butterly EW, Wild SH, Mair FS, Taylor RS, Guthrie B, Gillies K, Dias S, Welton NJ, McAllister DA. Lees JS, et al. BMJ Med. 2022 Sep 1;1(1):e000217. doi: 10.1136/bmjmed-2022-000217. eCollection 2022. BMJ Med. 2022. PMID: 36936559 Free PMC article. - Auricular Acupressure for Dry Eye Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.
Huang Q, Zhan M, Hu Z. Huang Q, et al. Medicina (Kaunas). 2023 Jan 16;59(1):177. doi: 10.3390/medicina59010177. Medicina (Kaunas). 2023. PMID: 36676806 Free PMC article. Review.
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources