S Hollis1, F Campbell. 1. Medical Statistics Unit, Fylde College, Lancaster University, Lancaster LA1 4YF. s.hollis@lansc.ac.uk
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To assess the methodological quality of intention to treat analysis as reported in randomised controlled trials in four large medical journals. DESIGN: Survey of all reports of randomised controlled trials published in 1997 in the BMJ, Lancet, JAMA, and New England Journal of Medicine. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Methods of dealing with deviations from random allocation and missing data. RESULTS: 119 (48%) of the reports mentioned intention to treat analysis. Of these, 12 excluded any patients who did not start the allocated intervention and three did not analyse all randomised subjects as allocated. Five reports explicitly stated that there were no deviations from random allocation. The remaining 99 reports seemed to analyse according to random allocation, but only 34 of these explicitly stated this. 89 (75%) trials had some missing data on the primary outcome variable. The methods used to deal with this were generally inadequate, potentially leading to a biased treatment effect. 29 (24%) trials had more than 10% of responses missing for the primary outcome, the methods of handling the missing responses were similar in this subset. CONCLUSIONS: The intention to treat approach is often inadequately described and inadequately applied. Authors should explicitly describe the handling of deviations from randomised allocation and missing responses and discuss the potential effect of any missing response. Readers should critically assess the validity of reported intention to treat analyses.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the methodological quality of intention to treat analysis as reported in randomised controlled trials in four large medical journals. DESIGN: Survey of all reports of randomised controlled trials published in 1997 in the BMJ, Lancet, JAMA, and New England Journal of Medicine. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Methods of dealing with deviations from random allocation and missing data. RESULTS: 119 (48%) of the reports mentioned intention to treat analysis. Of these, 12 excluded any patients who did not start the allocated intervention and three did not analyse all randomised subjects as allocated. Five reports explicitly stated that there were no deviations from random allocation. The remaining 99 reports seemed to analyse according to random allocation, but only 34 of these explicitly stated this. 89 (75%) trials had some missing data on the primary outcome variable. The methods used to deal with this were generally inadequate, potentially leading to a biased treatment effect. 29 (24%) trials had more than 10% of responses missing for the primary outcome, the methods of handling the missing responses were similar in this subset. CONCLUSIONS: The intention to treat approach is often inadequately described and inadequately applied. Authors should explicitly describe the handling of deviations from randomised allocation and missing responses and discuss the potential effect of any missing response. Readers should critically assess the validity of reported intention to treat analyses.
Authors: C Begg; M Cho; S Eastwood; R Horton; D Moher; I Olkin; R Pitkin; D Rennie; K F Schulz; D Simel; D F Stroup Journal: JAMA Date: 1996-08-28 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Lars H Lundstrøm; Christophe Hv Duez; Anders K Nørskov; Charlotte V Rosenstock; Jakob L Thomsen; Ann Merete Møller; Søren Strande; Jørn Wetterslev Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2017-05-17