Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Meta-Analysis
. 2021 Jun 14;21(1):122.
doi: 10.1186/s12874-021-01313-x.

Systematic review and meta analysis of differential attrition between active and control arms in randomized controlled trials of lifestyle interventions in chronic disease

Bevens W  1 , Shoushtari A  2 , Jelinek P  2 , Jelinek Ga  2 , Weiland Tj  2
Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

Systematic review and meta analysis of differential attrition between active and control arms in randomized controlled trials of lifestyle interventions in chronic disease

Bevens W et al. BMC Med Res Methodol. .

Abstract

Background: Attrition is a major obstacle for lifestyle interventions sustained for the medium-to-long term and can have significant consequences on the internal validity of a trial. When the degree of attrition differs between active and control arms this is termed differential attrition and is an important consideration during initial stages of trial planning.

Objectives: The primary research question of this study was: what is the differential attrition between treatment arms in lifestyle interventions for prevalent chronic diseases?

Methods: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of 23 studies involving a lifestyle intervention component in cohorts with chronic diseases. The search accessed three databases: Scopus, Medline Ovid and Web of Science. Attrition between treatment arms was analysed using a random-effects model and examined the relationship between the relative attrition and potential moderators, such as time to final follow-up, time to first follow-up, type of disease, type of control, type of intervention and length of treatment.

Results: The pooled risk ratio was 1.00 (95% CI 0.97 - 1.03) and only one study fell outside this range. A univariable association was described between the pooled risk ration and length (years) to final follow-up, which did not remain in the multivariable model.

Conclusions: Ultimately, we found no evidence of differential attrition in medium-to-long term lifestyle intervention studies for chronic disease, increasing confidence in conducting such studies with minimal potential of attrition bias.

Trial registration: PROSPERO registration number CRD42018084495 .

Keywords: Attrition; Chronic disease; Lifestyle; Retention.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Prisma flow diagram
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Forest plot for meta-analysis
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Funnel plot for publication bias
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Dumville JC, Torgerson DJ, Hewitt CE. Reporting attrition in randomised controlled trials. BMJ. 2006;332(7547):969–971. doi: 10.1136/bmj.332.7547.969. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Heneghan C, Perera R, Ward AA, Fitzmaurice D, Meats E, Glasziou P. Assessing differential attrition in clinical trials: self-monitoring of oral anticoagulation and type II diabetes. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2007;7:18. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-7-18. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Lieberman JA, Stroup TS, McEvoy JP, et al. Effectiveness of antipsychotic drugs in patients with chronic schizophrenia. N Engl J Med. 2005;353(12):1209–1223. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa051688. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Rabinowitz J, Levine SZ, Barkai O, Davidov O. Dropout rates in randomized clinical trials of antipsychotics: a meta-analysis comparing first- and second-generation drugs and an examination of the role of trial design features. Schizophr Bull. 2009;35(4):775–788. doi: 10.1093/schbul/sbn005. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Hewitt CE, Kumaravel B, Dumville JC, Torgerson DJ. Trial attrition study g. Assessing the impact of attrition in randomized controlled trials. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63(11):1264–1270. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.01.010. - DOI - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources