Home > Research > Publications & Outputs > What is meant by ‘intention to treat’ analysis?
View graph of relations

What is meant by ‘intention to treat’ analysis?

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articlepeer-review

Published

Standard

What is meant by ‘intention to treat’ analysis? / Hollis, S.; Campbell, F. M.

In: BMJ, Vol. 319, 1999, p. 670-674.

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articlepeer-review

Harvard

APA

Vancouver

Hollis S, Campbell FM. What is meant by ‘intention to treat’ analysis? BMJ. 1999;319:670-674.

Author

Hollis, S. ; Campbell, F. M. / What is meant by ‘intention to treat’ analysis?. In: BMJ. 1999 ; Vol. 319. pp. 670-674.

Bibtex

@article{97ecc078d22f4500b1a13c76421a009d,
title = "What is meant by {\textquoteleft}intention to treat{\textquoteright} analysis?",
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.",
author = "S. Hollis and Campbell, {F. M.}",
year = "1999",
language = "English",
volume = "319",
pages = "670--674",
journal = "BMJ",
issn = "0959-8138",
publisher = "British Medical Association",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - What is meant by ‘intention to treat’ analysis?

AU - Hollis, S.

AU - Campbell, F. M.

PY - 1999

Y1 - 1999

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

M3 - Journal article

VL - 319

SP - 670

EP - 674

JO - BMJ

JF - BMJ

SN - 0959-8138

ER -