2011
DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.111-2033
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Intention-to-treat and per-protocol analysis

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
56
0
3

Year Published

2013
2013
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7
2
1

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 77 publications
(60 citation statements)
references
References 1 publication
0
56
0
3
Order By: Relevance
“…This involves all participants once randomly allocated to avoid any bias. By contrast, using per‐protocol analysis, which compares only those members of treatment groups who complete their treatment, leads to bias . We report all planned outcomes in relation to both analyses to accurately interpret the effect of our intervention.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This involves all participants once randomly allocated to avoid any bias. By contrast, using per‐protocol analysis, which compares only those members of treatment groups who complete their treatment, leads to bias . We report all planned outcomes in relation to both analyses to accurately interpret the effect of our intervention.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This entailed a comparison of the intervention groups encompassing only those participants who completed the intervention as originally allocated. Taken on its own, this analysis leads to bias (Shah, ); therefore, for the purposes of our study, we restricted analyses to only those participants who adhered to the inclusion criteria, who participated in the FCS to which they were randomly assigned, and who did not deviate from the protocol (see Fisher et al., ).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Contemplating the number of patients reported in the different analyses, none has the initial number of randomized patients and only those patients who completed the study protocol have been included in the analysis. These observations combined with the understandably high patient drop-out rate, and exhaustive data imputation are suggestive that the study may be categorized as per protocol analysis averse to its initial design as an intent-to-treat analysis (15).…”
Section: Commentarymentioning
confidence: 99%