The Unsolved Problem of Attrition Rates on Randomized Clinical Trials for Cocaine Use Disorders: A Scoping Review.

Amanda Bernardino Sinatora, Daniela Mendes Chiloff, Juliana P M Santos, Kevin Y Xu, Vitor S Tardelli, Thiago Marques Fidalgo
{"title":"The Unsolved Problem of Attrition Rates on Randomized Clinical Trials for Cocaine Use Disorders: A Scoping Review.","authors":"Amanda Bernardino Sinatora, Daniela Mendes Chiloff, Juliana P M Santos, Kevin Y Xu, Vitor S Tardelli, Thiago Marques Fidalgo","doi":"10.1177/29767342251326374","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Cocaine use disorder (CUD) is a significant and insufficiently studied public health issue, especially considering that the global prevalence of CUD is estimated to be higher than ever. There is still no consensus on effective treatments for CUD. Important barriers for research in the field include the high attrition levels observed in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for CUD treatment and the lack of emphasis on methods to reduce attrition in CUD RCTs.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The goal of this study was to systematically review over 2 decades of CUD RCTs, with the objective of evaluating the reporting of attrition bias and methods used to mitigate attrition.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Our scoping review extracted information from 106 RCTs, of which only 82 explicitly evaluated attrition as an outcome. Thirty-eight studies had an attrition rate above 50%, and five 16 studies had medium attrition bias, 6% to 19%. The remaining 68 had large attrition bias.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Across all included studies, discussion of attrition as a limitation was uncommon. Overall, these analyses suggest that most RCTs evaluating CUD treatments have not adequately accounted for attrition in their analyses or employed approaches to mitigate attrition.</p>","PeriodicalId":516535,"journal":{"name":"Substance use & addiction journal","volume":" ","pages":"29767342251326374"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Substance use & addiction journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/29767342251326374","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Cocaine use disorder (CUD) is a significant and insufficiently studied public health issue, especially considering that the global prevalence of CUD is estimated to be higher than ever. There is still no consensus on effective treatments for CUD. Important barriers for research in the field include the high attrition levels observed in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for CUD treatment and the lack of emphasis on methods to reduce attrition in CUD RCTs.

Methods: The goal of this study was to systematically review over 2 decades of CUD RCTs, with the objective of evaluating the reporting of attrition bias and methods used to mitigate attrition.

Results: Our scoping review extracted information from 106 RCTs, of which only 82 explicitly evaluated attrition as an outcome. Thirty-eight studies had an attrition rate above 50%, and five 16 studies had medium attrition bias, 6% to 19%. The remaining 68 had large attrition bias.

Conclusion: Across all included studies, discussion of attrition as a limitation was uncommon. Overall, these analyses suggest that most RCTs evaluating CUD treatments have not adequately accounted for attrition in their analyses or employed approaches to mitigate attrition.

可卡因使用障碍随机临床试验中未解决的损耗率问题:范围综述。
背景:可卡因使用障碍(CUD)是一个重大但研究不足的公共卫生问题,特别是考虑到全球CUD的流行率估计比以往任何时候都高。对于反刍兽疫的有效治疗仍未达成共识。该领域研究的重要障碍包括在CUD治疗的随机对照试验(RCTs)中观察到的高损耗水平,以及缺乏对减少CUD随机对照试验中损耗的方法的重视。方法:本研究的目的是系统地回顾20多年的CUD随机对照试验,目的是评估损耗偏差的报告和减轻损耗的方法。结果:我们的范围综述从106项随机对照试验中提取了信息,其中只有82项明确将减员作为结果进行评估。38项研究的流失率超过50%,16项研究中的5项具有中等流失率,介于6%到19%之间。剩下的68人有很大的损耗偏差。结论:在所有纳入的研究中,将减员作为限制因素的讨论并不常见。总的来说,这些分析表明,大多数评估CUD治疗的随机对照试验在分析中没有充分考虑到损耗,也没有采用减轻损耗的方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信