Understanding Intention-to-Treat Analysis in Trials
Author Information
Author(s): Richard D Feinman
Primary Institution: Department of Biochemistry, SUNY Downstate Medical Center, Brooklyn, NY, USA
Hypothesis
Does Intention-to-Treat analysis accurately reflect treatment efficacy in randomized controlled trials?
Conclusion
Intention-to-Treat analysis can mislead conclusions about treatment efficacy by conflating adherence with treatment outcomes.
Supporting Evidence
- Intention-to-Treat analysis can obscure the true efficacy of treatments by mixing results from compliant and non-compliant subjects.
- Misinterpretations of ITT results can lead to incorrect health recommendations.
- Two examples illustrate how ITT can misrepresent the effectiveness of vitamin E and diet comparisons.
Takeaway
When researchers look at how well a treatment works, they sometimes include people who didn't follow the rules of the study, which can make the results confusing.
Methodology
The commentary discusses the implications of using Intention-to-Treat analysis in randomized controlled trials, highlighting its potential misuse.
Potential Biases
Including non-compliant subjects in analyses can introduce misleading bias regarding treatment efficacy.
Limitations
The commentary does not provide empirical data but rather critiques existing studies and methodologies.
Statistical Information
P-Value
0.003
Confidence Interval
95% CI, 0.64–0.92
Statistical Significance
p=0.003
Digital Object Identifier (DOI)
Want to read the original?
Access the complete publication on the publisher's website