understanding the intention-to-treat principle in randomized controlled trials
Clicks: 209
ID: 161201
2017
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This
article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score —
reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
Reader Engagement
Steady Performance
30.0
/100
209 views
71 readers
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
SteadyRanked #92 of 140 articles by views in lwt
Most read
Least read
Bar heights use a square-root scale. Only the 120 most-read articles are drawn; the journal has 140 in total.
Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet mintedCreate a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.
5
SUSD
one-off · no wallet required
Abstract
Clinicians, institutions, and policy makers use results from randomized controlled trials to make decisions regarding therapeutic interventions for their patients and populations. Knowing the effect the intervention has on patients in clinical trials is critical for making both individual patient as well as population-based decisions. However, patients in clinical trials do not always adhere to the protocol. Excluding patients from the analysis who violated the research protocol (did not get their intended treatment) can have significant implications that impact the results and analysis of a study. Intention-to-treat analysis is a method for analyzing results in a prospective randomized study where all participants who are randomized are included in the statistical analysis and analyzed according to the group they were originally assigned, regardless of what treatment (if any) they received. This method allows the investigator (or consumer of the medical literature) to draw accurate (unbiased) conclusions regarding the effectiveness of an intervention. This method preserves the benefits of randomization, which cannot be assumed when using other methods of analysis. The risk of bias is increased whenever treatment groups are not analyzed according to the group to which they were originally assigned. If an intervention is truly effective (truth), an intention-to-treat analysis will provide an unbiased estimate of the efficacy of the intervention at the level of adherence in the study. This article will review the “intention-to-treat” principle and its converse, “per-protocol” analysis, and illustrate how using the wrong method of analysis can lead to a significantly biased assessment of the effectiveness of an intervention.
| Reference Key |
mccoy2017westernunderstanding
Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using
SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
|
|---|---|
| Authors | ;C. Eric McCoy |
| Journal | lwt |
| Year | 2017 |
| DOI |
10.5811/westjem.2017.8.35985
|
| URL | |
| Keywords |
Citations
No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org
Comments
No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.