Advertisement
Table 5 Supporting explanations about statistics used that was related to attrition bias
| Statistical information | N (%) |
|---|---|
| ITT | 826 (8) |
| No ITT | 238 (2.3) |
| PP | 88 (0.9) |
| ITT, LOCF | 87 (0.8) |
| LOCF | 67 (0.7) |
| ITT not reported | 47 (0.5) |
| ITT, PP | 34 (0.3) |
| Completer analysis | 27 (0.2) |
| mITT | 25 (0.2) |
| Sensitivity analysis | 15 (0.1) |
| BOCF | 12 (0.1) |
| ITT, BOCF | 8 (0.08) |
| Analysis not described | 6 (0.06) |
| Available case analysis | 5 (0.05) |
| ITT, Completer analysis | 5 (0.05) |
| LOCF, BOCF | 5 (0.05) |
| ITT analysis may have been of value | 4 (0.04) |
| ITT, PP, LOCF | 4 (0.04) |
| ITT, LOCF, WOCF | 4 (0.04) |
| LOCF, PP | 4 (0.04) |
| Partial ITT | 4 (0.04) |
| WOCF | 3 (0.03) |
| Unclear whether LOCF was used | 3 (0.03) |
| ITT inadequate | 3 (0.03) |
| Some participants were excluded from analysis | 3 (0.03) |
| No ITT, PP | 3 (0.03) |
| BOCF, WOCF | 2 (0.02) |
| ITT, LOCF, NRI | 2 (0.02) |
| No LOCF | 2 (0.02) |
| We have not been able to re-analyse the outcomes for all of the enrolled infants (ITT) | 1 (0.01) |
| LOCF, Sensitivity analysis | 1 (0.01) |
| ITT, PP, LOCF, Sensitivity analysis | 1 (0.01) |
| The trial states that the analysis was performed on an ITT basis, but the data seems to have been analysed on-treatment | 1 (0.01) |
| ITT analysis possible | 1 (0.01) |
| ITT analysis conducted but unclear how missing data were dealt with | 1 (0.01) |
| PP, FAS | 1 (0.01) |
| It is likely that the principle of ITT analysis was violated | 1 (0.01) |
| Statistical analysis used the APT | 1 (0.01) |
| Missing outcome data imputed in analysis | 1 (0.01) |
| True ITT analysis was difficult | 1 (0.01) |
| Missing participants were omitted from the analysis | 1 (0.01) |
| Although the study was set up to be analysed on ITT basis, the participants with missing outcomes were not included in the primary analysis | 1 (0.01) |
| ITT done only for P value | 1 (0.01) |
| Not strict ITT analysis | 1 (0.01) |
| mITT, but unclear how missing data were dealt with | 1 (0.01) |
| ITT, WOCF | 1 (0.01) |
| mITT, LOCF | 1 (0.01) |
| mITT, PP | 1 (0.01) |
| Equal distribution among groups, ITT analysis not necessary | 1 (0.01) |
| It was unclear if data analysis was PP or ITT | 1 (0.01) |
| The results are presented as available case analysis rather than ITT. The authors present a sensitivity analysis | 1 (0.01) |
| No information about whether an ITT analysis was undertaken and, if so, how missing data were imputed | 1 (0.01) |
| This is an “as treated” as opposed to an ITT analysis | 1 (0.01) |
| LOCF, BOCF, SOCF | 1 (0.01) |
| ITT, PP, mITT | 1 (0.01) |
| ITT, No sensitivity analysis | 1 (0.01) |
| LOCF, Completer analysis | 1 (0.01) |
| Large number of cross-overs made ITT impossible after the first phase | 1 (0.01) |
| Unclear if ITT | 1 (0.01) |
| ITT, PP, Sensitivity analysis | 1 (0.01) |
| No ITT, Completer analysis | 1 (0.01) |
| No mention of how missing data from participants who dropped out were dealt with, e.g. ITT analysis | 1 (0.01) |
| ITT, Sensitivity analysis | 1 (0.01) |
| No sensitivity analysis | 1 (0.01) |
| LOCF, WOCF | 1 (0.01) |
