Bias reduction with an adjustment for participants' intent to dropout of a randomized controlled clinical trial

Background Attrition, which is virtually ubiquitous in randomized controlled clinical trials, introduces problems of increased bias and reduced statistical power. Although likelihood-based statistical models such as mixed-effects models can accommodate incomplete data, the assumption of ignorable attrition is usually required for valid inferences. Purpose In an effort to make the ignorability assumption more plausible, we consider the value of one readily obtained covariate that has been recommended by others, asking participants to rate their Intent to Attend the next assessment session. Methods Here we present a simulation study that compares the bias and coverage in mixed-effects outcome analyses that do and do not include Intent to Attend as a covariate. Results For the simulation specifications that we examined, the results are promising in the sense of reduced bias and greater precision. Specifically, if the time-varying Intent to Attend variable is associated with attrition, outcome and treatment group, bias is substantially reduced by including it in the outcome analyses. Limitations Analyses that are adjusted in this way will only yield unbiased estimates of efficacy if attrition is ignorable based on the self-rated intentions. Conclusions Accounting for participants' Intent to Attend the next assessment session will reduce attrition bias under conditions examined here. The item adds little burden and can be used both for data analyses and to identify participants at risk of attrition. Clinical Trials 2007; 4: 540—547. http://ctj.sagepub.com

[1]  Hakan Demirtas Practical Advice on How to Impute Continuous Data When the Ultimate Interest Centers on Dichotomized Outcomes Through Pre-Specified Thresholds , 2007, Commun. Stat. Simul. Comput..

[2]  A. Leon,et al.  Attrition in Randomized Controlled Clinical Trials: Methodological Issues in Psychopharmacology , 2006, Biological Psychiatry.

[3]  Joseph L Schafer,et al.  On the performance of random‐coefficient pattern‐mixture models for non‐ignorable drop‐out , 2003, Statistics in medicine.

[4]  J. Schafer,et al.  Missing data: our view of the state of the art. , 2002, Psychological methods.

[5]  D. Hedeker,et al.  MIXREG: a computer program for mixed-effects regression analysis with autocorrelated errors. , 1996, Computer methods and programs in biomedicine.

[6]  J. Robins,et al.  Analysis of semiparametric regression models for repeated outcomes in the presence of missing data , 1995 .

[7]  Roderick J. A. Little,et al.  Modeling the Drop-Out Mechanism in Repeated-Measures Studies , 1995 .

[8]  M. Kenward,et al.  Informative Drop‐Out in Longitudinal Data Analysis , 1994 .

[9]  Peter J. Diggle,et al.  Informative dropout in longitudinal data analysis. , 1994 .

[10]  R. Little Pattern-Mixture Models for Multivariate Incomplete Data , 1993 .

[11]  A Heyting,et al.  Statistical handling of drop-outs in longitudinal clinical trials. , 1992, Statistics in medicine.

[12]  Martin Fishbein,et al.  The Role of Desires, Self‐Predictions, and Perceived Control in the Prediction of Training Session Attendance1 , 1990 .

[13]  N M Laird,et al.  Missing data in longitudinal studies. , 1988, Statistics in medicine.

[14]  J. Ware,et al.  Random-effects models for longitudinal data. , 1982, Biometrics.

[15]  Donald E. Knuth,et al.  The art of computer programming. Vol.2: Seminumerical algorithms , 1981 .

[16]  I. Ajzen,et al.  Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behavior , 1980 .

[17]  Linus Schrage,et al.  A More Portable Fortran Random Number Generator , 1979, TOMS.

[18]  D. Rubin INFERENCE AND MISSING DATA , 1975 .