Methods to analyse cost data of patients who withdraw in a clinical trial setting
Missing data resulting from premature study withdrawal are a common problem in the analysis of longitudinal data in clinical trials. To date, this subject has received little attention in the context of economic evaluations and with regard to the analysis of cost data. To (i) demonstrate the impact...
Saved in:
Published in: | PharmacoEconomics Vol. 21; no. 15; pp. 1103 - 1112 |
---|---|
Main Authors: | , , |
Format: | Journal Article |
Language: | English |
Published: |
Auckland
Adis International
01-01-2003
Springer Healthcare | Adis Springer |
Series: | PharmacoEconomics |
Subjects: | |
Online Access: | Get full text |
Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
Abstract | Missing data resulting from premature study withdrawal are a common problem in the analysis of longitudinal data in clinical trials. To date, this subject has received little attention in the context of economic evaluations and with regard to the analysis of cost data.
To (i) demonstrate the impact of patients who drop out during the study on the outcomes of an economic evaluation, and (ii) to compare the mean and variation in costs after applying five different methods to deal with incomplete data: multiple imputation, complete cases analysis, linear extrapolation, predicted mean and hot decking.
The study was performed using cost data collected in two randomised clinical trials comparing patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease receiving either tiotropium bromide or ipratropium bromide. The overall dropout rate was 17%, with the daily costs of the dropouts approximately 4 times higher than the costs of the completers.
Multiple imputation is a principled method that deals with missing observations by replacing each missing observation with a set of multiple plausible values. The variance between the resulting multiple datasets is combined with the variance between the datasets to take account of the extra uncertainty that results from missing data. The outcomes after multiple imputation were compared with the results of four naive methods to deal with missing observations: complete cases analysis, linear extrapolation, predicted mean and hot decking. All costs were expressed in 2001 euros.
In the tiotropium bromide group, mean (standard error) costs varied from Euro 955 (137) after complete cases analysis to Euro 1298 (198) after linear extrapolation. The corresponding estimates in the ipratropium bromide group were Euro 970 (125) and Euro 1561 (244), respectively. The difference in costs between treatment groups varied from -Euro 15 (95% CI: -379 to 349) after complete cases analysis to -Euro 402 (95% CI: -883 to 79) after predicted mean, in favour of the tiotropium bromide group. The difference in costs according to the other methods varied from -Euro 263 (95% CI: -878 to 353) after linear extrapolation to -Euro 265 (95% CI: -709 to 180) after multiple imputation to -Euro 359 (95% CI: -771 to 54) after hot decking.
This study showed that the method of dealing with the data of the dropouts had a large impact on the outcomes of an economic evaluation. Information about the rate of patient withdrawal and the way data of dropouts are treated is of vital importance in assessing the results of economic evaluations and should always be reported. Multiple imputation is a principled method that can be used to deal with the data of these patients. |
---|---|
AbstractList | BACKGROUNDMissing data resulting from premature study withdrawal are a common problem in the analysis of longitudinal data in clinical trials. To date, this subject has received little attention in the context of economic evaluations and with regard to the analysis of cost data.OBJECTIVESTo (i) demonstrate the impact of patients who drop out during the study on the outcomes of an economic evaluation, and (ii) to compare the mean and variation in costs after applying five different methods to deal with incomplete data: multiple imputation, complete cases analysis, linear extrapolation, predicted mean and hot decking.STUDY DESIGNThe study was performed using cost data collected in two randomised clinical trials comparing patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease receiving either tiotropium bromide or ipratropium bromide. The overall dropout rate was 17%, with the daily costs of the dropouts approximately 4 times higher than the costs of the completers.METHODSMultiple imputation is a principled method that deals with missing observations by replacing each missing observation with a set of multiple plausible values. The variance between the resulting multiple datasets is combined with the variance between the datasets to take account of the extra uncertainty that results from missing data. The outcomes after multiple imputation were compared with the results of four naive methods to deal with missing observations: complete cases analysis, linear extrapolation, predicted mean and hot decking. All costs were expressed in 2001 euros.RESULTSIn the tiotropium bromide group, mean (standard error) costs varied from Euro 955 (137) after complete cases analysis to Euro 1298 (198) after linear extrapolation. The corresponding estimates in the ipratropium bromide group were Euro 970 (125) and Euro 1561 (244), respectively. The difference in costs between treatment groups varied from -Euro 15 (95% CI: -379 to 349) after complete cases analysis to -Euro 402 (95% CI: -883 to 79) after predicted mean, in favour of the tiotropium bromide group. The difference in costs according to the other methods varied from -Euro 263 (95% CI: -878 to 353) after linear extrapolation to -Euro 265 (95% CI: -709 to 180) after multiple imputation to -Euro 359 (95% CI: -771 to 54) after hot decking.CONCLUSIONThis study showed that the method of dealing with the data of the dropouts had a large impact on the outcomes of an economic evaluation. Information about the rate of patient withdrawal and the way data of dropouts are treated is of vital importance in assessing the results of economic evaluations and should always be reported. Multiple imputation is a principled method that can be used to deal with the data of these patients. Background: Missing data resulting from premature study withdrawal are a common problem in the analysis of longitudinal data in clinical trials. To date, this subject has received little attention in the context of economic evaluations and with regard to the analysis of cost data. Objectives: To (i) demonstrate the impact of patients who drop out during the study on the outcomes of an economic evaluation, and (ii) to compare the mean and variation in costs after applying five different methods to deal with incomplete data: multiple imputation, complete cases analysis, linear extrapolation, predicted mean and hot decking. Study design: The study was performed using cost data collected in two randomised clinical trials comparing patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease receiving either tiotropium bromide or ipratropium bromide. The overall dropout rate was 17%, with the daily costs of the dropouts approximately 4 times higher than the costs of the completers. Methods: Multiple imputation is a principled method that deals with missing observations by replacing each missing observation with a set of multiple plausible values. The variance between the resulting multiple datasets is combined with the variance between the datasets to take account of the extra uncertainty that results from missing data. The outcomes after multiple imputation were compared with the results of four naive methods to deal with missing observations: complete cases analysis, linear extrapolation, predicted mean and hot decking. All costs were expressed in 2001 euros. Results: In the tiotropium bromide group, mean (standard error) costs varied from Conclusion: This study showed that the method of dealing with the data of the dropouts had a large impact on the outcomes of an economic evaluation. Information about the rate of patient withdrawal and the way data of dropouts are treated is of vital importance in assessing the results of economic evaluations and should always be reported. Multiple imputation is a principled method that can be used to deal with the data of these patients. Missing data resulting from premature study withdrawal are a common problem in the analysis of longitudinal data in clinical trials. To date, this subject has received little attention in the context of economic evaluations and with regard to the analysis of cost data. To (i) demonstrate the impact of patients who drop out during the study on the outcomes of an economic evaluation, and (ii) to compare the mean and variation in costs after applying five different methods to deal with incomplete data: multiple imputation, complete cases analysis, linear extrapolation, predicted mean and hot decking. The study was performed using cost data collected in two randomised clinical trials comparing patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease receiving either tiotropium bromide or ipratropium bromide. The overall dropout rate was 17%, with the daily costs of the dropouts approximately 4 times higher than the costs of the completers. Multiple imputation is a principled method that deals with missing observations by replacing each missing observation with a set of multiple plausible values. The variance between the resulting multiple datasets is combined with the variance between the datasets to take account of the extra uncertainty that results from missing data. The outcomes after multiple imputation were compared with the results of four naive methods to deal with missing observations: complete cases analysis, linear extrapolation, predicted mean and hot decking. All costs were expressed in 2001 euros. In the tiotropium bromide group, mean (standard error) costs varied from Euro 955 (137) after complete cases analysis to Euro 1298 (198) after linear extrapolation. The corresponding estimates in the ipratropium bromide group were Euro 970 (125) and Euro 1561 (244), respectively. The difference in costs between treatment groups varied from -Euro 15 (95% CI: -379 to 349) after complete cases analysis to -Euro 402 (95% CI: -883 to 79) after predicted mean, in favour of the tiotropium bromide group. The difference in costs according to the other methods varied from -Euro 263 (95% CI: -878 to 353) after linear extrapolation to -Euro 265 (95% CI: -709 to 180) after multiple imputation to -Euro 359 (95% CI: -771 to 54) after hot decking. This study showed that the method of dealing with the data of the dropouts had a large impact on the outcomes of an economic evaluation. Information about the rate of patient withdrawal and the way data of dropouts are treated is of vital importance in assessing the results of economic evaluations and should always be reported. Multiple imputation is a principled method that can be used to deal with the data of these patients. Background: Missing data resulting from premature study withdrawal are a common problem in the analysis of longitudinal data in clinical trials. To date, this subject has received little attention in the context of economic evaluations and with regard to the analysis of cost data. Objectives: To (i) demonstrate the impact of patients who drop out during the study on the outcomes of an economic evaluation, and (ii) to compare the mean and variation in costs after applying five different methods to deal with incomplete data: multiple imputation, complete cases analysis, linear extrapolation, predicted mean and hot decking. Study design: The study was performed using cost data collected in two randomised clinical trials comparing patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease receiving either tiotropium bromide or ipratropium bromide. The overall dropout rate was 17%, with the daily costs of the dropouts approximately 4 times higher than the costs of the completers. Methods: Multiple imputation is a principled method that deals with missing observations by replacing each missing observation with a set of multiple plausible values. The variance between the resulting multiple datasets is combined with the variance between the datasets to take account of the extra uncertainty that results from missing data. The outcomes after multiple imputation were compared with the results of four naive methods to deal with missing observations: complete cases analysis, linear extrapolation, predicted mean and hot decking. All costs were expressed in 2001 euros. Results: In the tiotropium bromide group, mean (standard error) costs varied from 955 € (137) after complete cases analysis to 1298 € (198) after linear extrapolation. The corresponding estimates in the ipratropium bromide group were 970 € (125) and 1561 € (244), respectively. The difference in costs between treatment groups varied from -15 € (95% CI: -379 to 349) after complete cases analysis to -402 € (95% CI: -883 to 79) after predicted mean, in favour of the tiotropium bromide group. The difference in costs according to the other methods varied from -263 € (95% CI: -878 to 353) after linear extrapolation to -265 € (95% CI: -709 to 180) after multiple imputation to -359 € (95% CI: -771 to 54) after hot decking. Conclusion: This study showed that the method of dealing with the data of the dropouts had a large impact on the outcomes of an economic evaluation. Information about the rate of patient withdrawal and the way data of dropouts are treated is of vital importance in assessing the results of economic evaluations and should always be reported. Multiple imputation is a principled method that can be used to deal with the data of these patients. |
Audience | Academic |
Author | H. RUTTEN-VAN MOLKEN, Maureen P. M OOSTENBRINK, Jan B AL, Maiwenn J |
Author_xml | – sequence: 1 givenname: Jan B surname: OOSTENBRINK fullname: OOSTENBRINK, Jan B organization: Institute for Medical Technology Assessment, Rotterdam, Erasmus Medical Centre Rotterdam, Rotterdam, Netherlands – sequence: 2 givenname: Maiwenn J surname: AL fullname: AL, Maiwenn J organization: Institute for Medical Technology Assessment, Rotterdam, Erasmus Medical Centre Rotterdam, Rotterdam, Netherlands – sequence: 3 givenname: Maureen P. M surname: H. RUTTEN-VAN MOLKEN fullname: H. RUTTEN-VAN MOLKEN, Maureen P. M organization: Institute for Medical Technology Assessment, Rotterdam, Erasmus Medical Centre Rotterdam, Rotterdam, Netherlands |
BackLink | http://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&idt=15218105$$DView record in Pascal Francis https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14596629$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed http://econpapers.repec.org/article/wkhphecon/v_3a21_3ay_3a2003_3ai_3a15_3ap_3a1103-1112.htm$$DView record in RePEc |
BookMark | eNptkWtrHSEQhqWkNJf2LxShtN82dVz34scQeoOEUmg_i0fdrO2ubtWTw_n3nc05TSgUcRyG59Vx3nNyEmJwhFBglxza5j1jDCRr6oozVnOAhlVYYuIZOQPoJJZ5d_KQs6prJTsl5zn_RKKtO_6CnIJoZNtyeUa-3boyRptpiVQHPe2zoybmQq0umsaBLrp4F0qmuzHSnS-jTXpHfaCamskHb_RES_IYsyvFh7uX5Pmgp-xeHc8L8uPjh-_Xn6ubr5--XF_dVKZhslSuFkJwYXvTcy6l6ZredRtuhLWS9Xbgjst-s-l62QP-wBkBdrCoaUXddFDXF-Td4d4lxd9bl4uafTZumnRwcZvVytQgAME3B_BOT075MMSStFlhdcUZ4ACZ7JC6_A-Fy7rZGxz_4LH-j6A_CEyKOSc3qCX5Wae9AqZWl9Rfl9SjS-rBJZTeHqTJLc486na_xmV0-Ja6V7XmgGG_JqjGw-OGBsOyJtiFAgCuxjLjfa-Po9huZmefGjnajMDbI6AzGjYkHYzPT1zDoQfs9A9hYbJI |
CitedBy_id | crossref_primary_10_1002_acr_22232 crossref_primary_10_1136_bjsports_2013_092743 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_apmr_2015_02_033 crossref_primary_10_1136_bmjopen_2016_014387 crossref_primary_10_1002_hec_1347 crossref_primary_10_1186_1472_6963_9_159 crossref_primary_10_1371_journal_pone_0267247 crossref_primary_10_1007_s00198_010_1356_5 crossref_primary_10_1136_bmjopen_2016_014849 crossref_primary_10_1179_146532806X120255 crossref_primary_10_1111_j_1524_4733_2009_00605_x crossref_primary_10_1111_jgs_16476 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_eplepsyres_2005_09_007 crossref_primary_10_1212_WNL_0000000000001857 crossref_primary_10_1007_s41669_017_0015_6 crossref_primary_10_1080_14737167_2021_1936501 crossref_primary_10_2165_00019053_200523120_00007 crossref_primary_10_1186_1471_2474_8_4 crossref_primary_10_1007_s00787_007_0603_6 crossref_primary_10_1007_s10198_015_0734_5 crossref_primary_10_1186_s13063_015_0648_7 crossref_primary_10_1007_s00586_005_1052_x crossref_primary_10_1111_j_1524_4733_2006_00106_x crossref_primary_10_1186_s12955_015_0299_0 crossref_primary_10_18231_j_ijpp_2020_014 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_cct_2004_11_015 crossref_primary_10_1378_chest_129_6_1693 crossref_primary_10_1002_hec_966 crossref_primary_10_1097_MLR_0b013e3181a31971 crossref_primary_10_1002_hec_1531 crossref_primary_10_2196_38159 crossref_primary_10_1186_1745_6215_12_133 crossref_primary_10_2165_00148365_200504020_00001 crossref_primary_10_1111_j_1532_5415_2011_03474_x crossref_primary_10_1136_bmjopen_2018_021490 crossref_primary_10_1186_s13063_021_05114_x crossref_primary_10_1186_s12913_021_06513_1 crossref_primary_10_1192_bjp_188_4_323 crossref_primary_10_1186_1471_2458_10_625 crossref_primary_10_1007_s40273_017_0512_6 crossref_primary_10_1186_1471_2318_9_25 crossref_primary_10_1097_01_yco_0000133836_34543_7e crossref_primary_10_1186_1748_5908_6_75 crossref_primary_10_1111_j_1600_0838_2009_00980_x crossref_primary_10_1016_j_annepidem_2010_11_013 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_rmed_2004_04_005 crossref_primary_10_1111_j_1365_2133_2012_10829_x crossref_primary_10_1080_15412550500346501 |
Cites_doi | 10.1002/sim.4780100410 10.1002/sim.4780141707 10.2307/2533947 10.2307/2531248 10.1183/09031936.02.00238702 10.1002/hec.4730030507 10.1136/bmj.317.7167.1195 10.1164/ajrccm.163.5.2101039 |
ContentType | Journal Article |
Copyright | 2004 INIST-CNRS COPYRIGHT 2003 Springer |
Copyright_xml | – notice: 2004 INIST-CNRS – notice: COPYRIGHT 2003 Springer |
DBID | IQODW CGR CUY CVF ECM EIF NPM DKI X2L AAYXX CITATION 7X8 |
DOI | 10.2165/00019053-200321150-00004 |
DatabaseName | Pascal-Francis Medline MEDLINE MEDLINE (Ovid) MEDLINE MEDLINE PubMed RePEc IDEAS RePEc CrossRef MEDLINE - Academic |
DatabaseTitle | MEDLINE Medline Complete MEDLINE with Full Text PubMed MEDLINE (Ovid) CrossRef MEDLINE - Academic |
DatabaseTitleList | MEDLINE - Academic MEDLINE |
Database_xml | – sequence: 1 dbid: ECM name: MEDLINE url: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=cmedm&site=ehost-live sourceTypes: Index Database |
DeliveryMethod | fulltext_linktorsrc |
Discipline | Economics Pharmacy, Therapeutics, & Pharmacology |
EISSN | 1179-2027 |
EndPage | 1112 |
ExternalDocumentID | A201032097 10_2165_00019053_200321150_00004 wkhphecon_v_3a21_3ay_3a2003_3ai_3a15_3ap_3a1103_1112_htm 14596629 15218105 |
Genre | Comparative Study Clinical Trial Randomized Controlled Trial Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't Journal Article |
GroupedDBID | --- -5G -BR -EM 0VX 123 199 29O 36B 3V. 4.4 406 53G 6I2 7WY 7X7 88E 8C1 8FI 8FJ 8FL 8R4 8R5 8V8 95. AAAUJ AADNT AAFGU AAIAL AAIKX AAJKR AAKAS AANZL AAPBV AARHV AATNV AAWTL AAYFA AAYOK AAYQN AAYTO ABDZT ABFTV ABIVO ABJOX ABKCH ABKMS ABKTR ABOCM ABPLI ABPTK ABTKH ABTMW ABUWG ABWBT ABXPI ACBMV ACBRV ACBYP ACCUX ACGFO ACGFS ACHQT ACIGE ACMJI ACMLO ACOKC ACREN ACTTH ACVWB ADBBV ADFRT ADFZG ADHHG ADMDM ADQRH ADRFC ADURQ ADYOE ADZCM ADZKW AEBTG AEFTE AEJHL AEJOU AEJRE AENEX AEOHA AEPKY AEPYU AESKC AEVLU AEXYK AEYRQ AFALF AFKRA AFNRJ AFWTZ AFZKB AGAYW AGDGC AGGBP AGQMX AHKMG AHMBA AHSBF AIAKS AILAN AJDOV AJRNO ALMA_UNASSIGNED_HOLDINGS AMKLP AMXSW AMYLF AQUVI ASKOH ASPBG AVWKF AWSVR AXYYD AZFZN AZQEC A~4 BENPR BEZIV BGNMA BPHCQ BVXVI CAG CCPQU COF CS3 DCUDU DNIVK DPUIP DU5 DWQXO EBLON EBR EBS EBU EJD EMOBN ESX F5P FERAY FLLZZ FNLPD FRNLG FSGXE FYUFA GNUQQ GROUPED_ABI_INFORM_RESEARCH IAO IBB IEA IHR IQODW ITC IWAJR J-C J5H JZLTJ K1G K60 K6~ LLZTM M0C M0T M1P M2M M4Y NQJWS NU0 NXXTH OAC OPC OVD P2P PQBIZ PQQKQ PROAC PSQYO PSYQQ Q2X RIG ROL RSV RZALA SISQX SNPRN SNX SOHCF SOJ SPKJE SRMVM SSLCW TEORI TSG U9L UAX UG4 UKHRP UPIKM UPOSE UTJUX VDBLX VFIZW W48 WAF YFH YQY Z0Y Z7U Z7X Z83 Z84 Z87 ~JE 0R~ AACDK AASML ABAKF ABJNI ABWHX ACAOD ACCOQ ACDTI ACZOJ AEFQL AEMSY AFBBN AGQEE AGRTI AIGIU AIZAD ALIPV CGR CUY CVF ECM EIF FIGPU HG6 HMCUK LGEZI LOTEE NADUK NPM PQBZA SJYHP ZMTXR DKI X2L Z82 AAYXX CITATION 7X8 |
ID | FETCH-LOGICAL-c509t-e344424d8c82299c758e7b2c4dd908df2e298bb78981690ec41dfd44464357133 |
ISSN | 1170-7690 |
IngestDate | Fri Oct 25 21:36:04 EDT 2024 Tue Nov 19 21:43:47 EST 2024 Tue Nov 12 23:45:50 EST 2024 Thu Sep 12 16:32:33 EDT 2024 Sat Dec 16 05:50:08 EST 2023 Sat Sep 28 08:49:25 EDT 2024 Sun Oct 22 16:08:21 EDT 2023 |
IsPeerReviewed | true |
IsScholarly | true |
Issue | 15 |
Keywords | Human Data analysis Variability Prediction Variance Significance test Extrapolation Analysis method Health economy Clinical trial Cost analysis Incomplete information Influence factor Comparative study |
Language | English |
License | CC BY 4.0 |
LinkModel | OpenURL |
MergedId | FETCHMERGED-LOGICAL-c509t-e344424d8c82299c758e7b2c4dd908df2e298bb78981690ec41dfd44464357133 |
Notes | ObjectType-Article-2 SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1 ObjectType-Feature-1 ObjectType-News-3 content type line 23 |
PMID | 14596629 |
PQID | 71333141 |
PQPubID | 23479 |
PageCount | 10 |
ParticipantIDs | proquest_miscellaneous_71333141 gale_infotracmisc_A201032097 gale_infotracacademiconefile_A201032097 crossref_primary_10_2165_00019053_200321150_00004 repec_primary_wkhphecon_v_3a21_3ay_3a2003_3ai_3a15_3ap_3a1103_1112_htm pubmed_primary_14596629 pascalfrancis_primary_15218105 |
PublicationCentury | 2000 |
PublicationDate | 2003-01-01 |
PublicationDateYYYYMMDD | 2003-01-01 |
PublicationDate_xml | – month: 01 year: 2003 text: 2003-01-01 day: 01 |
PublicationDecade | 2000 |
PublicationPlace | Auckland |
PublicationPlace_xml | – name: Auckland – name: New Zealand |
PublicationSeriesTitle | PharmacoEconomics |
PublicationTitle | PharmacoEconomics |
PublicationTitleAlternate | Pharmacoeconomics |
PublicationYear | 2003 |
Publisher | Adis International Springer Healthcare | Adis Springer |
Publisher_xml | – name: Adis International – name: Springer Healthcare | Adis – name: Springer |
References | 9794854 - BMJ. 1998 Oct 31;317(7167):1195-200 1759018 - Respir Med. 1991 Sep;85 Suppl B:25-31; discussion 33-7 7827649 - Health Econ. 1994 Sep-Oct;3(5):333-45 3719049 - Biometrics. 1986 Mar;42(1):121-30 2057657 - Stat Med. 1991 Apr;10(4):585-98 11316667 - Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2001 Apr;163(5):1256-76 9192444 - Biometrics. 1997 Jun;53(2):419-34 11871363 - Eur Respir J. 2002 Feb;19(2):209-16 8532984 - Stat Med. 1995 Sep 15;14(17):1913-25 Vincken (R11-4-20060122) 2002; 19 Rubin (R12-4-20060122) 1991; 10 OCallaghan (R14-4-20060122) 1999; 62 Zeger (R6-4-20060122) 1986; 42 Lavori (R13-4-20060122) 1995; 14 Barber (R1-4-20060122) 1998; 317 Rutten-van Molken (R2-4-20060122) 1994; 3 Lin (R7-4-20060122) 1997; 53 Pauwels (R9-4-20060122) 2001; 163 |
References_xml | – volume: 62 start-page: 111 year: 1999 ident: R14-4-20060122 publication-title: Kwantitatieve Methoden contributor: fullname: OCallaghan – volume: 10 start-page: 595 year: 1991 ident: R12-4-20060122 publication-title: Stat Med doi: 10.1002/sim.4780100410 contributor: fullname: Rubin – volume: 14 start-page: 1913 year: 1995 ident: R13-4-20060122 publication-title: Stat Med doi: 10.1002/sim.4780141707 contributor: fullname: Lavori – volume: 53 start-page: 419 year: 1997 ident: R7-4-20060122 publication-title: Biometrics doi: 10.2307/2533947 contributor: fullname: Lin – volume: 42 start-page: 121 year: 1986 ident: R6-4-20060122 publication-title: Biometrics doi: 10.2307/2531248 contributor: fullname: Zeger – volume: 19 start-page: 209 issue: 2 year: 2002 ident: R11-4-20060122 publication-title: Eur Respir J doi: 10.1183/09031936.02.00238702 contributor: fullname: Vincken – volume: 3 start-page: 333 year: 1994 ident: R2-4-20060122 publication-title: Health Econ doi: 10.1002/hec.4730030507 contributor: fullname: Rutten-van Molken – volume: 317 start-page: 1195 year: 1998 ident: R1-4-20060122 publication-title: BMJ doi: 10.1136/bmj.317.7167.1195 contributor: fullname: Barber – volume: 163 start-page: 1256 issue: 5 year: 2001 ident: R9-4-20060122 publication-title: Am J Respir Crit Care Med doi: 10.1164/ajrccm.163.5.2101039 contributor: fullname: Pauwels |
SSID | ssj0006372 |
Score | 1.924369 |
Snippet | Missing data resulting from premature study withdrawal are a common problem in the analysis of longitudinal data in clinical trials. To date, this subject has... Background: Missing data resulting from premature study withdrawal are a common problem in the analysis of longitudinal data in clinical trials. To date, this... BACKGROUNDMissing data resulting from premature study withdrawal are a common problem in the analysis of longitudinal data in clinical trials. To date, this... |
SourceID | proquest gale crossref repec pubmed pascalfrancis |
SourceType | Aggregation Database Index Database |
StartPage | 1103 |
SubjectTerms | Biological and medical sciences Bronchodilator Agents - economics Bronchodilator Agents - therapeutic use Chronic-obstructive-pulmonary-disease Clinical trial. Drug monitoring Clinical-trial-design Data Collection - methods Data-collection General pharmacology Health Care Costs Health technology assessment Humans Ipratropium - economics Ipratropium - therapeutic use Medical sciences Patient Dropouts - statistics & numerical data Pharmacoeconomics Pharmacology. Drug treatments Pulmonary Disease, Chronic Obstructive - drug therapy Pulmonary Disease, Chronic Obstructive - economics Quality of Life Research Design Scopolamine Derivatives - economics Scopolamine Derivatives - therapeutic use Tiotropium Bromide |
Title | Methods to analyse cost data of patients who withdraw in a clinical trial setting |
URI | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14596629 http://econpapers.repec.org/article/wkhphecon/v_3a21_3ay_3a2003_3ai_3a15_3ap_3a1103-1112.htm https://search.proquest.com/docview/71333141 |
Volume | 21 |
hasFullText | 1 |
inHoldings | 1 |
isFullTextHit | |
isPrint | |
link | http://sdu.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwtV1Lb9NAEF7R9gASQlBegVL2gMohtYj34ccxQKIKJW2BVOpttV5vlKrFieKEqP-eGa9fkYqAA4esLTuO1_k-z87szoOQd2kaam0s96QW3BMpN56Oe7FnEhmZMPWTpHCQPfkenl5Gnwdi0LiNNcf-K9JwDLDGyNl_QLv-UTgA-4A5tIA6tH-F-7goCV3kbdBFwhF0R89XXXQFLdybXSLVvLuZzYtZ2HSpNzjr0YqSdKU8clv4RLfV1_My0XUVzlwr5GcYK5IlS7Bsne9t1pRz7t-4oKCrDQj1ZhnqG5bIzjyMnxrjcv3H4ObaycCxXqM3UPe8Oy5jJ6ppCd6alnCSFCvahIGrBVqJWua3KSVbghO0EN4ahEECs7sEPPMD6TwiQZGRHJHnDJVarzB2mkGtWsg_PVPDi9FITQaXkx2yx0AcgTTc6w--nIzqETvgRZGvusvO4wvv9eF3d9pSY8rB_OFC5wDS1FVEuctkAQtoaRfWtFSYyWPyqLQ9aN-R5gm5Z7N9cr_Gcp8clfjeHtNJE5eXH9Mjet6kOL99Sr6WLKOrOS1ZRpFlFFlG51NasYwCy2jFMnqVUU0rltGCZbRk2TNyMRxMPp14ZXEOz4COufIsF0IwkUYGSwbEBuxOGybMiDSNe1E6ZZbFUZKEURzhSqw1wk-nKVwDKrDEmZHnZDebZ_YloSaSSSytlhFLhOE6iWHLhQ4DYWLLph3iV_-1WrgcLApsV8RHVfioGh9V4NMh7xEUheRZLbXRZbQJ3BETnqk-eoFw1ovDDjnY-iaIV7N1-nAL1qYHErXjnuyQtxXOCq9Fp8XMzte5wqfkvvA75IWDv7lWyDgIWNwhw4IP9YnN9Wwxw5kw9VNxzXxobnEHHg42V_DxJTQL3IEOov3O1Gz149UfO_GaPGhe0wOyu1qu7Ruyk6frw_J1-AUuMsPs |
link.rule.ids | 315,782,786,27933,27934 |
linkProvider | Springer Nature |
openUrl | ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info%3Aofi%2Fenc%3AUTF-8&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fsummon.serialssolutions.com&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Methods+to+analyse+cost+data+of+patients+who+withdraw+in+a+clinical+trial+setting&rft.jtitle=PharmacoEconomics&rft.au=Oostenbrink%2C+Jan+B&rft.au=Al%2C+Maiwenn+J&rft.au=Rutten-van+M%C3%B6lken%2C+Maureen+P+M+H&rft.date=2003-01-01&rft.issn=1170-7690&rft.volume=21&rft.issue=15&rft.spage=1103&rft.epage=1112&rft_id=info:doi/10.2165%2F00019053-200321150-00004&rft.externalDBID=NO_FULL_TEXT |
thumbnail_l | http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/lc.gif&issn=1170-7690&client=summon |
thumbnail_m | http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/mc.gif&issn=1170-7690&client=summon |
thumbnail_s | http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/sc.gif&issn=1170-7690&client=summon |