Interpreting trial results following use of different intention-to-treat approaches for preventing attrition bias: a meta-epidemiological study protocol.

scientific article

Interpreting trial results following use of different intention-to-treat approaches for preventing attrition bias: a meta-epidemiological study protocol. is …
instance of (P31):
scholarly articleQ13442814

External links are
P356DOI10.1136/BMJOPEN-2014-005297
P932PMC publication ID4179424
P698PubMed publication ID25260368
P5875ResearchGate publication ID266252226

P50authorRobin ChristensenQ57080024
Bjarke B HansenQ58816518
Henning BliddalQ80996159
Christian GluudQ26265142
P2093author name stringJoseph Beyene
Simon Tarp
Daniel E Furst
Anna Dossing
P2860cites workModified versus standard intention-to-treat reporting: are there differences in methodological quality, sponsorship, and findings in randomized trials? A cross-sectional studyQ21203737
Why the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool Should Include Funding Source as a Standard ItemQ24201550
Why the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool Should not Include Funding Source as a Standard ItemQ24201554
Industry sponsorship and research outcomeQ24202591
Biologics for rheumatoid arthritis: an overview of Cochrane reviewsQ24240731
The effects of excluding patients from the analysis in randomised controlled trials: meta-epidemiological studyQ24550236
What is meant by intention to treat analysis? Survey of published randomised controlled trialsQ24647858
Empirical evidence of bias in treatment effect estimates in controlled trials with different interventions and outcomes: meta-epidemiological studyQ24653790
Randomized controlled trial design in rheumatoid arthritis: the past decadeQ37397646
Modified intention to treat reporting in randomised controlled trials: systematic reviewQ37765079
CONSORT 2010 explanation and elaboration: Updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trialsQ37950739
Updated consensus statement on biological agents for the treatment of rheumatic diseases, 2011.Q37998319
Potential impact on estimated treatment effects of information lost to follow-up in randomised controlled trials (LOST-IT): systematic reviewQ38011678
Influence of reported study design characteristics on intervention effect estimates from randomised controlled trials: combined analysis of meta-epidemiological studiesQ38044510
Beyond intention to treat: what is the right question?Q38149747
Biologicals for rheumatoid arthritisQ39723605
Specific autoantibodies precede the symptoms of rheumatoid arthritis: a study of serial measurements in blood donorsQ40532147
Impact of single centre status on estimates of intervention effects in trials with continuous outcomes: meta-epidemiological studyQ41111726
Long-term outcome of treating rheumatoid arthritis: results after 20 yearsQ41913707
Missing outcomes in randomized trials: addressing the dilemma.Q42030778
The relationship between disease activity, joint destruction, and functional capacity over the course of rheumatoid arthritisQ42661052
Single-center trials show larger treatment effects than multicenter trials: evidence from a meta-epidemiologic studyQ45228027
Baseline observation carry forward: reasoning, properties, and practical issuesQ46395226
Influence of reported study design characteristics on intervention effect estimates from randomized, controlled trialsQ47192223
American College of Rheumatology. Preliminary definition of improvement in rheumatoid arthritisQ47643186
Statistical methods for assessing the influence of study characteristics on treatment effects in 'meta-epidemiological' researchQ52036957
Placebo-controlled studies in rheumatoid arthritis: ethical issuesQ53558680
Reporting disease activity in clinical trials of patients with rheumatoid arthritis: EULAR/ACR collaborative recommendationsQ57169471
Rheumatoid arthritis increased the risk for myocardial infarction in womenQ57819617
Efficacy of methotrexate treatment in patients with probable rheumatoid arthritis: A double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trialQ58234944
Validation of the 28-joint Disease Activity Score (DAS28) and European League Against Rheumatism response criteria based on C-reactive protein against disease progression in patients with rheumatoid arthritis, and comparison with the DAS28 based on eQ63101754
Missing data in trials: do we have to keep carrying the last observation forward?Q80419496
Missing dataQ24669904
Association of funding and conclusions in randomized drug trials: a reflection of treatment effect or adverse events?Q26701411
EULAR recommendations for the management of rheumatoid arthritis with synthetic and biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs: 2013 updateQ26859134
Influence of trial sample size on treatment effect estimates: meta-epidemiological studyQ27687577
The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trialsQ27860509
The american rheumatism association 1987 revised criteria for the classification of rheumatoid arthritisQ27860872
The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaborationQ28131636
Systematic reviews in health care: Assessing the quality of controlled clinical trialsQ29618659
Reported methodologic quality and discrepancies between large and small randomized trials in meta-analysesQ29619185
Violation of the intent-to-treat principle and rate of missing data in superiority trials assessing structural outcomes in rheumatic diseasesQ30991316
Multiple imputation for missing data in epidemiological and clinical research: potential and pitfallsQ33476068
Generalized linear mixed models for meta-analysisQ33594559
Strategy for intention to treat analysis in randomised trials with missing outcome dataQ33814157
EULAR recommendations for the management of rheumatoid arthritis with synthetic and biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugsQ34110066
Modified disease activity scores that include twenty-eight-joint counts. Development and validation in a prospective longitudinal study of patients with rheumatoid arthritisQ34315745
Investigating patient exclusion bias in meta-analysis.Q34370675
Does analysis using "last observation carried forward" introduce bias in dementia research?Q34846882
Intention-to-treat analysis: who is in? Who is out?Q35027056
Controlling the risk of spurious findings from meta-regression.Q35782230
Bias in clinical intervention research.Q36380552
Reporting of radiographic methods in randomised controlled trials assessing structural outcomes in rheumatoid arthritisQ36678766
The intention-to-treat approach in randomized controlled trials: are authors saying what they do and doing what they say?Q36937596
P433issue9
P921main subjectepidemiologyQ133805
biasQ742736
study protocolQ111908491
P304page(s)e005297
P577publication date2014-09-26
P1433published inBMJ OpenQ17003470
P1476titleInterpreting trial results following use of different intention-to-treat approaches for preventing attrition bias: a meta-epidemiological study protocol
P478volume4

Reverse relations

cites work (P2860)
Q92665695Community pharmacy lifestyle intervention to increase physical activity and improve cardiovascular health of men with prostate cancer: a phase II feasibility study
Q91775337Dosage reduction and discontinuation of biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs in patients with rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis and axial spondyloarthritis: protocol for a pragmatic, randomised controlled trial (the BIOlogical Do
Q36072546Empirical Evidence of Study Design Biases in Randomized Trials: Systematic Review of Meta-Epidemiological Studies
Q35770656Most Trial Eligibility Criteria and Patient Baseline Characteristics Do Not Modify Treatment Effect in Trials Using Targeted Therapies for Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Meta-Epidemiological Study.
Q89124309Safety and efficacy of upadacitinib in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis refractory to biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (SELECT-BEYOND): a double-blind, randomised controlled phase 3 trial
Q56957641Safety and efficacy of upadacitinib in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and inadequate response to conventional synthetic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (SELECT-NEXT): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial
Q47098116Tenofovir vs lamivudine plus adefovir in chronic hepatitis B: TENOSIMP-B study.

Search more.