Jocelyn Gravel1, Lucie Opatrny, Stan Shapiro. 1. Division of Emergency Medicine, Department of Pediatrics, Sainte-Justine Hospital, and Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada. Graveljocelyn@ hotmail.com
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Intention-to-treat (ITT) is an approach to the analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCT) in which patients are analyzed as randomized regardless of the treatment actually received. PURPOSE: To ascertain the proportion of RCT reporting the use of intention-to-treat and the accuracy of that report and to examine the distribution and analysis of missing data for the studies reporting an ITT analysis. METHOD: We conducted a cross-sectional literature review of RCTs reported in 10 medical journals in 2002. All articles were assessed using a standardized form. Two evaluators independently reviewed a 10% sample of articles to assess reliability. Subsequently, one evaluator reviewed the remaining articles. The proportion of articles reporting the use of ITT was calculated. Among these, the proportion of articles that ;analyzed patients as randomized' and the proportion and analysis of missing data were evaluated using standardized definitions. RESULTS: Of the 403 articles, 249 (62%) reported the use of ITT. Among these, available patients were clearly analyzed as randomized in 192 (77%). Authors used a modified ITT in 23 (9%); clearly violated a major component of ITT in 17 (7%), and the approach used was unclear in 17 (7%). More than 60% of articles had missing data in their primary analysis. Few articles reported a strategy for missing data. The main reason for missing data was loss to follow-up. LIMITATIONS: A single evaluator evaluated most articles, but the high concordance obtained during the inter-rater evaluation suggests that the assessments were consistent. In addition, the small spectrum of journals limits generalizability. Finally, there could be a difference between what was reported and what was performed. CONCLUSIONS: This study emphasizes that authors use the label ;intention-to-treat' quite differently. The most common use refers to the analysis of all available subjects as randomized regardless of the missing data aspect.
BACKGROUND: Intention-to-treat (ITT) is an approach to the analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCT) in which patients are analyzed as randomized regardless of the treatment actually received. PURPOSE: To ascertain the proportion of RCT reporting the use of intention-to-treat and the accuracy of that report and to examine the distribution and analysis of missing data for the studies reporting an ITT analysis. METHOD: We conducted a cross-sectional literature review of RCTs reported in 10 medical journals in 2002. All articles were assessed using a standardized form. Two evaluators independently reviewed a 10% sample of articles to assess reliability. Subsequently, one evaluator reviewed the remaining articles. The proportion of articles reporting the use of ITT was calculated. Among these, the proportion of articles that ;analyzed patients as randomized' and the proportion and analysis of missing data were evaluated using standardized definitions. RESULTS: Of the 403 articles, 249 (62%) reported the use of ITT. Among these, available patients were clearly analyzed as randomized in 192 (77%). Authors used a modified ITT in 23 (9%); clearly violated a major component of ITT in 17 (7%), and the approach used was unclear in 17 (7%). More than 60% of articles had missing data in their primary analysis. Few articles reported a strategy for missing data. The main reason for missing data was loss to follow-up. LIMITATIONS: A single evaluator evaluated most articles, but the high concordance obtained during the inter-rater evaluation suggests that the assessments were consistent. In addition, the small spectrum of journals limits generalizability. Finally, there could be a difference between what was reported and what was performed. CONCLUSIONS: This study emphasizes that authors use the label ;intention-to-treat' quite differently. The most common use refers to the analysis of all available subjects as randomized regardless of the missing data aspect.
Authors: David Moher; Sally Hopewell; Kenneth F Schulz; Victor Montori; Peter C Gøtzsche; P J Devereaux; Diana Elbourne; Matthias Egger; Douglas G Altman Journal: BMJ Date: 2010-03-23
Authors: Sherry L Pagoto; Andrea T Kozak; Priya John; Jamie S Bodenlos; Donald Hedeker; Bonnie Spring; Kristin L Schneider Journal: Int J Behav Med Date: 2009
Authors: Ronald C Kessler; Greg J Duncan; Lisa A Gennetian; Lawrence F Katz; Jeffrey R Kling; Nancy A Sampson; Lisa Sanbonmatsu; Alan M Zaslavsky; Jens Ludwig Journal: JAMA Date: 2014-03-05 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Eveline Nüesch; Sven Trelle; Stephan Reichenbach; Anne W S Rutjes; Elizabeth Bürgi; Martin Scherer; Douglas G Altman; Peter Jüni Journal: BMJ Date: 2009-09-07
Authors: Elie A Akl; Matthias Briel; John J You; Francois Lamontagne; Azim Gangji; Tali Cukierman-Yaffe; Mohamad Alshurafa; Xin Sun; Kara A Nerenberg; Bradley C Johnston; Claudio Vera; Edward J Mills; Dirk Bassler; Arturo Salazar; Neera Bhatnagar; Jason W Busse; Zara Khalid; Sd Walter; Deborah J Cook; Holger J Schünemann; Douglas G Altman; Gordon H Guyatt Journal: Trials Date: 2009-06-11 Impact factor: 2.279