Dropouts in randomized clinical trials of Korean medicine interventions: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Sae-Rom Jeon, Dongwoo Nam, Tae-Hun Kim
Author Information
  1. Sae-Rom Jeon: Department of Clinical Korean Medicine, Graduate School, Kyung Hee University, 26 Kyung Heedae-ro, Dongdaemun-gu, Seoul, 02447, Republic of Korea.
  2. Dongwoo Nam: Department of Clinical Korean Medicine, Graduate School, Kyung Hee University, 26 Kyung Heedae-ro, Dongdaemun-gu, Seoul, 02447, Republic of Korea.
  3. Tae-Hun Kim: Department of Clinical Korean Medicine, Graduate School, Kyung Hee University, 26 Kyung Heedae-ro, Dongdaemun-gu, Seoul, 02447, Republic of Korea. rockandmineral@gmail.com. ORCID

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The dropout rate is an important determinant of outcomes in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and should be carefully controlled. This study explored the current dropout rate in studies of Korean medicine (KM) interventions by systematic evaluation of RCTs conducted in the past 10 years.
METHODS: Three clinical trial registries (Clinical Research Information Service, ClinicalTrials.gov, and World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform) were searched to identify RCT protocols for KM interventions, such as acupuncture, herbal medicine, moxibustion, or cupping, and studies of mixed interventions, registered in Korea from 2009 to 2019. The PubMed, Embase, and OASIS databases were searched for the full reports of these RCTs, including published journal articles and theses. Dropout rates and the reasons for dropping out were analyzed in each report. The risk of bias in each of the included studies was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. The risk difference for dropping out between the treatment and control groups was calculated with the 95% confidence interval in a random effects model.
RESULTS: Forty-nine published studies were included in the review. The median dropout rate was 10% in the treatment group (interquartile range 6.7%, 17.0%) and 14% in the control group (interquartile range 5.4%, 16.3%) and was highest in acupuncture studies (12%), followed by herbal medicine (10%), moxibustion (8%), and cupping (7%). Loss to follow-up was the most common reason for dropping out. The risk difference for dropping out between the intervention and control groups was estimated to be 0.01 (95% confidence interval - 0.02, 0.03) in KM intervention studies.
CONCLUSIONS: This review found no significant difference in the dropout rate between studies according to the type of KM intervention. We recommend allowance for a minimum dropout rate of 15% in future RCTs of KM interventions.
REVIEW PROTOCOL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42020141011.

Keywords

References

  1. J Ethnopharmacol. 2012 Nov 21;144(2):402-7 [PMID: 23026303]
  2. J Occup Health. 2012;54(6):416-26 [PMID: 22971528]
  3. Integr Med Res. 2012 Dec;1(1):36-40 [PMID: 28664045]
  4. Integr Cancer Ther. 2010 Dec;9(4):331-8 [PMID: 21059621]
  5. Integr Cancer Ther. 2017 Mar;16(1):118-125 [PMID: 27335088]
  6. Acta Ophthalmol. 2010 Dec;88(8):e328-33 [PMID: 21070615]
  7. Complement Ther Med. 2015 Oct;23(5):658-65 [PMID: 26365445]
  8. Integr Cancer Ther. 2018 Dec;17(4):1137-1143 [PMID: 30009652]
  9. Evid Based Complement Alternat Med. 2018 Jul 30;2018:6162106 [PMID: 30151020]
  10. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2013 Apr 1;38(7):549-57 [PMID: 23026870]
  11. BMJ Open. 2018 May 17;8(5):e018464 [PMID: 29773696]
  12. Pharmacoeconomics. 2003;21(15):1103-12 [PMID: 14596629]
  13. Evid Based Complement Alternat Med. 2015;2015:203612 [PMID: 26539218]
  14. PLoS One. 2013 Apr 17;8(4):e61271 [PMID: 23613825]
  15. J Altern Complement Med. 2018 Jan;24(1):25-32 [PMID: 28753030]
  16. BMC Complement Altern Med. 2011 Dec 02;11:124 [PMID: 22132755]
  17. Evid Based Complement Alternat Med. 2016;2016:9481413 [PMID: 27066103]
  18. J Ethnopharmacol. 2014 Dec 2;158 Pt A:11-7 [PMID: 25456420]
  19. Neurol Res. 2007;29 Suppl 1:S98-103 [PMID: 17359649]
  20. BMJ. 2010 Mar 23;340:c869 [PMID: 20332511]
  21. Integr Cancer Ther. 2018 Jun;17(2):524-530 [PMID: 29034740]
  22. Evid Based Complement Alternat Med. 2013;2013:265035 [PMID: 23861702]
  23. Clin Nutr. 2014 Dec;33(6):973-81 [PMID: 24411490]
  24. Trials. 2018 Dec 12;19(1):680 [PMID: 30541604]
  25. Trials. 2015 Jul 26;16:314 [PMID: 26211002]
  26. BMC Complement Altern Med. 2014 Sep 01;14:324 [PMID: 25175308]
  27. Evid Based Complement Alternat Med. 2013;2013:824605 [PMID: 24381638]
  28. Diabetes Care. 2018 Oct;41(10):e141-e142 [PMID: 30061320]
  29. BMC Complement Altern Med. 2017 Jan 31;17(1):85 [PMID: 28143471]
  30. Integr Cancer Ther. 2015 May;14(3):221-30 [PMID: 25691084]
  31. Acupunct Med. 2011 Dec;29(4):249-56 [PMID: 21653660]
  32. J Ethnopharmacol. 2016 Apr 22;182:160-9 [PMID: 26902832]
  33. Menopause. 2010 Mar;17(2):269-80 [PMID: 19907348]
  34. Arthritis Rheum. 2005 Jun;52(6):1858-65 [PMID: 15934058]
  35. BMC Complement Altern Med. 2018 Jun 15;18(1):186 [PMID: 29903020]
  36. Am J Chin Med. 2009;37(6):1013-21 [PMID: 19938212]
  37. Evid Based Complement Alternat Med. 2018 Nov 14;2018:3165125 [PMID: 30538759]
  38. Phytother Res. 2018 Jan;32(1):49-57 [PMID: 29130588]
  39. J Altern Complement Med. 2016 Dec;22(12):997-1006 [PMID: 27732083]
  40. Onco Targets Ther. 2016 Jul 22;9:4533-8 [PMID: 27524909]
  41. J Altern Complement Med. 2012 May;18(5):501-8 [PMID: 22594649]
  42. PLoS One. 2014 Jul 25;9(7):e101973 [PMID: 25061882]
  43. J Acupunct Meridian Stud. 2010 Mar;3(1):16-23 [PMID: 20633511]
  44. Breast J. 2000 Oct;6(5):310-314 [PMID: 11348388]
  45. Evid Based Complement Alternat Med. 2018 Oct 01;2018:8546357 [PMID: 30363994]

Grants

  1. HB16C0048-010016/the Ministry of Health & Welfare through the Korea Health Industry Development Institute (KHIDI)

MeSH Term

Acupuncture Therapy
Humans
Moxibustion
Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
Republic of Korea

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0studiesmedicinedropoutrateKMRCTsinterventionsdroppingriskdifferencereviewtrialsKoreanclinicalcontrolinterventionrandomizedcontrolledsystematicClinicalsearchedacupunctureherbalmoxibustioncuppingpublishedbiasincludedtreatmentgroups95%confidenceinterval10%groupinterquartilerange7%0DropoutsBACKGROUND:importantdeterminantoutcomescarefullystudyexploredcurrentevaluationconductedpast10 yearsMETHODS:ThreetrialregistriesResearchInformationServiceClinicalTrialsgovWorldHealthOrganizationInternationalTrialsRegistryPlatformidentifyRCTprotocolsmixedregisteredKorea20092019PubMedEmbaseOASISdatabasesfullreportsincludingjournalarticlesthesesDropoutratesreasonsanalyzedreportassessedusingCochranetoolcalculatedrandomeffectsmodelRESULTS:Forty-ninemedian6170%14%54%163%highest12%followed8%Lossfollow-upcommonreasonestimated01- 00203CONCLUSIONS:foundsignificantaccordingtyperecommendallowanceminimum15%futureREVIEWPROTOCOLREGISTRATION:PROSPEROCRD42020141011interventions:meta-analysisAcupunctureHerbalMeta-analysisRandomizedRiskSystematic

Similar Articles

Cited By