Cargando…

Are the MORECare guidelines on reporting of attrition in palliative care research populations appropriate? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

BACKGROUND: Palliative care trials have higher rates of attrition. The MORECare guidance recommends applying classifications of attrition to report attrition to help interpret trial results. The guidance separates attrition into three categories: attrition due to death, illness or at random. The aim...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Oriani, Anna, Dunleavy, Lesley, Sharples, Paul, Perez Algorta, Guillermo, Preston, Nancy J.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6953282/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31918702
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12904-019-0506-6
_version_ 1783486609320050688
author Oriani, Anna
Dunleavy, Lesley
Sharples, Paul
Perez Algorta, Guillermo
Preston, Nancy J.
author_facet Oriani, Anna
Dunleavy, Lesley
Sharples, Paul
Perez Algorta, Guillermo
Preston, Nancy J.
author_sort Oriani, Anna
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Palliative care trials have higher rates of attrition. The MORECare guidance recommends applying classifications of attrition to report attrition to help interpret trial results. The guidance separates attrition into three categories: attrition due to death, illness or at random. The aim of our study is to apply the MORECare classifications on reported attrition rates in trials. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted and attrition classifications retrospectively applied. Four databases, EMBASE; Medline, CINHAL and PsychINFO, were searched for randomised controlled trials of palliative care populations from 01.01.2010 to 08.10.2016. This systematic review is part of a larger review looking at recruitment to randomised controlled trials in palliative care, from January 1990 to early October 2016. We ran random-effect models with and without moderators and descriptive statistics to calculate rates of missing data. RESULTS: One hundred nineteen trials showed a total attrition of 29% (95% CI 28 to 30%). We applied the MORECare classifications of attrition to the 91 papers that contained sufficient information. The main reason for attrition was attrition due to death with a weighted mean of 31.6% (SD 27.4) of attrition cases. Attrition due to illness was cited as the reason for 17.6% (SD 24.5) of participants. In 50.8% (SD 26.5) of cases, the attrition was at random. We did not observe significant differences in missing data between total attrition in non-cancer patients (26%; 95% CI 18–34%) and cancer patients (24%; 95% CI 20–29%). There was significantly more missing data in outpatients (29%; 95% CI 22–36%) than inpatients (16%; 95% CI 10–23%). We noted increased attrition in trials with longer durations. CONCLUSION: Reporting the cause of attrition is useful in helping to understand trial results. Prospective reporting using the MORECare classifications should improve our understanding of future trials.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6953282
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-69532822020-01-14 Are the MORECare guidelines on reporting of attrition in palliative care research populations appropriate? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials Oriani, Anna Dunleavy, Lesley Sharples, Paul Perez Algorta, Guillermo Preston, Nancy J. BMC Palliat Care Research Article BACKGROUND: Palliative care trials have higher rates of attrition. The MORECare guidance recommends applying classifications of attrition to report attrition to help interpret trial results. The guidance separates attrition into three categories: attrition due to death, illness or at random. The aim of our study is to apply the MORECare classifications on reported attrition rates in trials. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted and attrition classifications retrospectively applied. Four databases, EMBASE; Medline, CINHAL and PsychINFO, were searched for randomised controlled trials of palliative care populations from 01.01.2010 to 08.10.2016. This systematic review is part of a larger review looking at recruitment to randomised controlled trials in palliative care, from January 1990 to early October 2016. We ran random-effect models with and without moderators and descriptive statistics to calculate rates of missing data. RESULTS: One hundred nineteen trials showed a total attrition of 29% (95% CI 28 to 30%). We applied the MORECare classifications of attrition to the 91 papers that contained sufficient information. The main reason for attrition was attrition due to death with a weighted mean of 31.6% (SD 27.4) of attrition cases. Attrition due to illness was cited as the reason for 17.6% (SD 24.5) of participants. In 50.8% (SD 26.5) of cases, the attrition was at random. We did not observe significant differences in missing data between total attrition in non-cancer patients (26%; 95% CI 18–34%) and cancer patients (24%; 95% CI 20–29%). There was significantly more missing data in outpatients (29%; 95% CI 22–36%) than inpatients (16%; 95% CI 10–23%). We noted increased attrition in trials with longer durations. CONCLUSION: Reporting the cause of attrition is useful in helping to understand trial results. Prospective reporting using the MORECare classifications should improve our understanding of future trials. BioMed Central 2020-01-09 /pmc/articles/PMC6953282/ /pubmed/31918702 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12904-019-0506-6 Text en © The Author(s). 2020 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research Article
Oriani, Anna
Dunleavy, Lesley
Sharples, Paul
Perez Algorta, Guillermo
Preston, Nancy J.
Are the MORECare guidelines on reporting of attrition in palliative care research populations appropriate? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials
title Are the MORECare guidelines on reporting of attrition in palliative care research populations appropriate? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials
title_full Are the MORECare guidelines on reporting of attrition in palliative care research populations appropriate? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials
title_fullStr Are the MORECare guidelines on reporting of attrition in palliative care research populations appropriate? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials
title_full_unstemmed Are the MORECare guidelines on reporting of attrition in palliative care research populations appropriate? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials
title_short Are the MORECare guidelines on reporting of attrition in palliative care research populations appropriate? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials
title_sort are the morecare guidelines on reporting of attrition in palliative care research populations appropriate? a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6953282/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31918702
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12904-019-0506-6
work_keys_str_mv AT orianianna arethemorecareguidelinesonreportingofattritioninpalliativecareresearchpopulationsappropriateasystematicreviewandmetaanalysisofrandomisedcontrolledtrials
AT dunleavylesley arethemorecareguidelinesonreportingofattritioninpalliativecareresearchpopulationsappropriateasystematicreviewandmetaanalysisofrandomisedcontrolledtrials
AT sharplespaul arethemorecareguidelinesonreportingofattritioninpalliativecareresearchpopulationsappropriateasystematicreviewandmetaanalysisofrandomisedcontrolledtrials
AT perezalgortaguillermo arethemorecareguidelinesonreportingofattritioninpalliativecareresearchpopulationsappropriateasystematicreviewandmetaanalysisofrandomisedcontrolledtrials
AT prestonnancyj arethemorecareguidelinesonreportingofattritioninpalliativecareresearchpopulationsappropriateasystematicreviewandmetaanalysisofrandomisedcontrolledtrials