PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
May 21, 2008Archives of Disease in Childhood616 citations

How much loss to follow-up is acceptable in long-term randomised trials and prospective studies?

View Full Paper
MFMary FewtrellGreat Ormond Street HospitalKKKathy KennedyUniversity College LondonASAmit SinghalDr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar University

Key Points

Key points are not available for this paper at this time.

Abstract

to test early nutritional interventions and prospective observational cohorts. RCTs are generally accepted as methodologically the best approach for informing health policy. They can equalise unknown as well as known confounding factors and so can demonstrate causation; they permit estimation of effect size and so can be used to assess likely economic

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Fewtrell et al. (2008) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/69dbbab6c9a120f055a3c596https://doi.org/10.1136/adc.2007.127316
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Also Consider

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

  1. 1Statistics in medical journals: some recent trends2000 · 25 citations
  2. 2Reporting attrition in randomised controlled trials2006 · 472 citations
  3. 3Evidence-Based Medicine: How to Practice and Teach EBM2001 · 1,674 citations
  4. 4Probiotics and prevention of atopic disease: 4-year follow-up of a randomised placebo-controlled trial2003 · 1,350 citations
  5. 5Statistical methods for assessing the influence of study characteristics on treatment effects in ‘meta‐epidemiological’ research2002 · 397 citations