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...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:PharmacoEconomics Vol. 21; no. 15; pp. 1103 - 1112
Main Authors: OOSTENBRINK, Jan B, AL, Maiwenn J, H. RUTTEN-VAN MOLKEN, Maureen P. M
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