Email updates

Keep up to date with the latest news and content from BMC Medical Research Methodology and BioMed Central.

Open Access Highly Accessed Research article

The use of percentage change from baseline as an outcome in a controlled trial is statistically inefficient: a simulation study

Andrew J Vickers

Author Affiliations

Integrative Medicine Service, Biostatistics Service, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, 1275 York Avenue New York, New York 10021, USA

BMC Medical Research Methodology 2001, 1:6  doi:10.1186/1471-2288-1-6

Published: 28 June 2001

Abstract

Background

Many randomized trials involve measuring a continuous outcome - such as pain, body weight or blood pressure - at baseline and after treatment. In this paper, I compare four possibilities for how such trials can be analyzed: post-treatment; change between baseline and post-treatment; percentage change between baseline and post-treatment and analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with baseline score as a covariate. The statistical power of each method was determined for a hypothetical randomized trial under a range of correlations between baseline and post-treatment scores.

Results

ANCOVA has the highest statistical power. Change from baseline has acceptable power when correlation between baseline and post-treatment scores is high;when correlation is low, analyzing only post-treatment scores has reasonable power. Percentage change from baseline has the lowest statistical power and was highly sensitive to changes in variance. Theoretical considerations suggest that percentage change from baseline will also fail to protect from bias in the case of baseline imbalance and will lead to an excess of trials with non-normally distributed outcome data.

Conclusions

Percentage change from baseline should not be used in statistical analysis. Trialists wishing to report this statistic should use another method, such as ANCOVA, and convert the results to a percentage change by using mean baseline scores.