CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 715Statistical Methods in Clinical TrialsAdvanced Causal Inference TechniquesMeta-analysis and systematic reviews

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Intention-to-Treat Analysis: Implications for Quantitative and Qualitative Research

Open access
NEWELL, DAVID J·1992·International Journal of Epidemiology
DOI 10.1093/ije/21.5.837
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Newell D J (Department of Medical Statistics, University of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK). Intention-to-treat analysis: implications for quantitative and qualitative research. International Journal of Epidemiology 1992, 21: 837–841 Intention-to-treat analysis is an important aspect of randomized controlled trials of health care interventions. The concept is now widely accepted in theory, but not always implemented in practice. Failure to analyse by intention-to-treat can give misleading and indeed life-threatening interpretations. In some studies, a case is put for estimating the effect that would have been observed if all patients had received the allocated treatment. Situations where this is valid are rare, but an example is given of such an exceptional study. The relevance of the intention-to-treat concept is not always taken into account in qualitative research. Interviews with new mothers who delivered their babies at home in a hypothetical controlled trial of home versus hospital confinement would provide fascinating accounts of the pleasures of successful delivery at home. But by definition the interviews would exclude the hazard and drama of necessary transfers to hospital due to complications in late pregnancy and early labour. The intention-to-treat approach would avoid this bias.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/ije/21.5.837

Cites

6 of 6 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 6 references

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Schwartz D, Flamant R, LeUouch i. Clinical Trials. London: Academic Press, 1980.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 601–700 of 715

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
NEWELL, D. J.
Affiliations
Newcastle University (GB)
Corresponding author
NEWELL, DAVID J
ORCID
NEWELL, DAVID J
Venue
International Journal of Epidemiology
Publisher
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Published
1992
Volume
21
Issue
5
Pages
837-841
ISSN
  • 0300-5771 (ISSN-L)
  • 1464-3685
DOI
10.1093/ije/21.5.837
OpenAlex
W2106051200
Cited by
715
References
6
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 24 · 2023: 22 · 2022: 21 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 16 · 2019: 16 · 2018: 25 · 2017: 36 · 2016: 31 · 2015: 35 · 2014: 51 · 2013: 62 · 2012: 34
FWCI
5.99
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • International Journal of Epidemiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Advanced Causal Inference Techniques
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
Keywords
intention-to-treat analysis, randomized controlled trials, health interventions, qualitative research, home birth, hospital confinement, allocation bias, treatment effect estimation
MeSH terms
Data Interpretation, Statistical, Evaluation Studies as Topic, Humans, Patient Compliance, Random Allocation, Research Design, Therapeutics, Cohort Studies, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review