5. Comparison of different methods of dealing with missing values.
| Time point | population | rivastigmine n | placebo n | result | probability level | 95% confidence limits |
| 1 to 4 mg daily versus placebo, ADAS‐Cog measured as change from baseline | ||||||
| 12 weeks | ITT | 650 | 643 | favours rivastigmine WMD ‐0.31 | 0.30 | ‐0.87, 0.25 |
| OC | 589 | 598 | favours rivastigmine WMD ‐0.46 | 0.14 | ‐1.08, 0.15 | |
| RDO + OC | 616 | 615 | favours rivastigmine WMD ‐0.37 | 0.20 | ‐0.96, 0.23 | |
| 18 weeks | ITT | 650 | 643 | favours rivastigmine WMD ‐1.07 | 0.0004 | ‐1.66, ‐0.48 |
| OC | 558 | 552 | favours rivastigmine WMD ‐1.19 | 0.0005 | ‐1.86, ‐0.52 | |
| RDO + OC | 573 | 572 | favours rivastigmine WMD ‐1.33 | 0.00008 | ‐1.99, ‐0.67 | |
| 26 weeks | ITT | 650 | 644 | favours rivastigmine WMD ‐0.84 | 0.01 | ‐1.48, ‐0.19 |
| OC | 519 | 526 | favours rivastigmine WMD ‐0.96 | 0.01 | ‐1.72, ‐0.21 | |
| RDO + OC | 559 | 564 | favours rivastigmine WMD ‐1.07 | 0.004 | ‐1.80, ‐0.34 | |
| 6 to 12 mg daily versus placebo, ADAS‐Cog measured as change from baseline | ||||||
| 12 weeks | ITT | 1054 | 863 | favours rivastigmine WMD ‐1.49 | <0.00001 | ‐1.96, ‐1.01 |
| OC | 843 | 803 | favours rivastigmine WMD ‐1.80 | <0.00001 | ‐2.33, ‐1.27 | |
| RDO + OC | 967 | 828 | favours rivastigmine WMD ‐1.38 | <0.00001 | ‐1.89, ‐0.88 | |
| 6 to 12 mg daily versus placebo, ADAS‐Cog measured as change from baseline | ||||||
| 18 weeks | ITT | 1054 | 863 | favours rivastigmine WMD ‐1.79 | <0.00001 | ‐2.30,‐ 1.29 |
| OC | 732 | 742 | favours rivastigmine WMD ‐2.36 | <0.00001 | ‐2.96, ‐1.76 | |
| RDO + OC | 837 | 772 | favours rivastigmine WMD ‐2.12 | <0.00001 | ‐2.69, ‐1.55 | |
| 26 weeks | ITT | 1054 | 863 | favours rivastigmine WMD ‐2.09 | <0.00001 | ‐2.65, ‐1.54 |
| OC | 670 | 709 | favours rivastigmine WMD ‐2.62 | <0.00001 | ‐3.29, ‐1.94 | |
| RDO + OC | 788 | 759 | favours rivastigmine WMD ‐2.39 | <0.00001 | ‐3.03, ‐1.74 | |
| 1 to 4 mg daily versus placebo, CIBIC‐Plus measured as no change or worse | ||||||
| 12 weeks | ITT | 608 | 612 | favours rivastigmine Peto OR 0.93 |
0.60 | 0.72, 1.21 |
| OC | 583 | 596 | favours rivastigmine Peto OR 0.95 |
0.70 | 0.72, 1.23 | |
| RDO + OC | 609 | 612 | favours rivastigmine Peto OR 0.94 |
0.60 | 0.72, 1.22 | |
| 18 weeks | ITT | 614 | 620 | favours rivastigmine Peto OR 0.98 |
0.90 | 0.75, 1.26 |
| OC | 556 | 554 | favours placebo Peto OR 1.04 |
0.80 | 0.80, 1.37 | |
| RDO + OC | 570 | 576 | favours placebo Peto OR 1.02 |
0.90 | 0.78, 1.34 | |
| 26 weeks | ITT | 614 | 623 | favours rivastigmine Peto OR 0.71 |
0.01 | 0.55, 0.93 |
| OC | 513 | 523 | favours rivastigmine Peto OR 0.67 |
0.006 | 0.50, 0.89 | |
| RDO + OC | 544 | 549 | favours rivastigmine Peto OR 0.68 |
0.008 | 0.52, 0.91 | |
| 1 to 4 mg daily versus placebo, CIBIC‐Plus measured as no change or worse | ||||||
| 12 weeks | ITT | 950 | 825 | favours rivastigmine Peto OR 0.74 |
0.008 | 0.60, 0.92 |
| OC | 831 | 799 | favours rivastigmine Peto OR 0.72 |
0.005 | 0.58, 0.91 | |
| RDO + OC | 952 | 825 | favours rivastigmine Peto OR 0.75 |
0.01 | 0.60, 0.93 | |
| 18 weeks | ITT | 970 | 835 | favours rivastigmine Peto OR 0.81 |
0.06 | 0.65, 1.01 |
| OC | 720 | 741 | favours rivastigmine Peto OR 0.72 |
0.005 | 0.57, 0.91 | |
| RDO + OC | 820 | 772 | favours rivastigmine Peto OR 0.77 |
0.02 | 0.62, 0.97 | |
| 26 weeks | ITT | 973 | 839 | favours rivastigmine Peto OR 0.68 |
0.0007 | 0.55, 0.85 |
| OC | 660 | 693 | favours rivastigmine Peto OR 0.63 |
0.0004 | 0.49, 0.81 | |
| RDO + OC | 784 | 758 | favours rivastigmine Peto OR 0.65 |
0.0003 | 0.51, 0.82 | |
The results for two outcomes, ADAS‐Cog and CBIC at 12, 18 and 26 weeks, have been pooled for 3 studies, B303/B305, B351. B352. These studies reported results for 3 populations, intention‐to‐treat (ITT), completers (OC), and completers + retrieved dropout (RDO + OC). The table reports the results of the meta‐analyses for 2 comparisons (1 to 4 mg daily versus placebo and 6 to 12 mg/day versus placebo) for the 3 populations at the 3 time points.