BACKGROUND:Intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis requires all randomised individuals to be included in the analysis in the groups to which they were randomised. However, there is confusion about how ITT analysis should be performed in the presence of missing outcome data. PURPOSES: To explain, justify, and illustrate an ITT analysis strategy for randomised trials with incomplete outcome data. METHODS: We consider several methods of analysis and compare their underlying assumptions, plausibility, and numbers of individuals included. We illustrate the ITT analysis strategy using data from the UK700 trial in the management of severe mental illness. RESULTS: Depending on the assumptions made about the missing data, some methods of analysis that include all randomised individuals may be less valid than methods that do not include all randomised individuals. Furthermore, some methods of analysis that include all randomised individuals are essentially equivalent to methods that do not include all randomised individuals. LIMITATIONS: This work assumes that the aim of analysis is to obtain an accurate estimate of the difference in outcome between randomised groups and not to obtain a conservative estimate with bias against the experimental intervention. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical trials should employ an ITT analysis strategy, comprising a design that attempts to follow up all randomised individuals, a main analysis that is valid under a stated plausible assumption about the missing data, and sensitivity analyses that include all randomised individuals in order to explore the impact of departures from the assumption underlying the main analysis. Following this strategy recognises the extra uncertainty arising from missing outcomes and increases the incentive for researchers to minimise the extent of missing data.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis requires all randomised individuals to be included in the analysis in the groups to which they were randomised. However, there is confusion about how ITT analysis should be performed in the presence of missing outcome data. PURPOSES: To explain, justify, and illustrate an ITT analysis strategy for randomised trials with incomplete outcome data. METHODS: We consider several methods of analysis and compare their underlying assumptions, plausibility, and numbers of individuals included. We illustrate the ITT analysis strategy using data from the UK700 trial in the management of severe mental illness. RESULTS: Depending on the assumptions made about the missing data, some methods of analysis that include all randomised individuals may be less valid than methods that do not include all randomised individuals. Furthermore, some methods of analysis that include all randomised individuals are essentially equivalent to methods that do not include all randomised individuals. LIMITATIONS: This work assumes that the aim of analysis is to obtain an accurate estimate of the difference in outcome between randomised groups and not to obtain a conservative estimate with bias against the experimental intervention. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical trials should employ an ITT analysis strategy, comprising a design that attempts to follow up all randomised individuals, a main analysis that is valid under a stated plausible assumption about the missing data, and sensitivity analyses that include all randomised individuals in order to explore the impact of departures from the assumption underlying the main analysis. Following this strategy recognises the extra uncertainty arising from missing outcomes and increases the incentive for researchers to minimise the extent of missing data.
Authors: Tomasz Burzykowski; James Carpenter; Corneel Coens; Daniel Evans; Lesley France; Mike Kenward; Peter Lane; James Matcham; David Morgan; Alan Phillips; James Roger; Brian Sullivan; Ian White; Ly-Mee Yu Journal: Pharm Stat Date: 2010 Oct-Dec Impact factor: 1.894
Authors: Jonathan A C Sterne; Ian R White; John B Carlin; Michael Spratt; Patrick Royston; Michael G Kenward; Angela M Wood; James R Carpenter Journal: BMJ Date: 2009-06-29
Authors: Andrew W Brown; Peng Li; Michelle M Bohan Brown; Kathryn A Kaiser; Scott W Keith; J Michael Oakes; David B Allison Journal: Am J Clin Nutr Date: 2015-05-27 Impact factor: 7.045
Authors: Lillian Gelberg; Ronald M Andersen; Melvin W Rico; Mani Vahidi; Guillermina Natera Rey; Steve Shoptaw; Barbara D Leake; Martin Serota; Kyle Singleton; Sebastian E Baumeister Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2017-06-13 Impact factor: 4.492
Authors: Sebastian E Baumeister; Lillian Gelberg; Barbara D Leake; Julia Yacenda-Murphy; Mani Vahidi; Ronald M Andersen Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2014-07-04 Impact factor: 4.492
Authors: Philip Hykin; A Toby Prevost; Sobha Sivaprasad; Joana C Vasconcelos; Caroline Murphy; Joanna Kelly; Jayashree Ramu; Abualbishr Alshreef; Laura Flight; Rebekah Pennington; Barry Hounsome; Ellen Lever; Andrew Metry; Edith Poku; Yit Yang; Simon P Harding; Andrew Lotery; Usha Chakravarthy; John Brazier Journal: Health Technol Assess Date: 2021-06 Impact factor: 4.014