Cited by 165Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsStatistical Methods in Clinical TrialsAdvanced Causal Inference Techniques

Deviation from intention to treat analysis in randomised trials and treatment effect estimates: meta-epidemiological study

Open access
Abraha, I., Cherubini, A., Cozzolino, F., De Florio, R., Luchetta, M. L., Rimland, J. M., Folletti, I., Marchesi, M. +4 more·2015·BMJ

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To examine whether deviation from the standard intention to treat analysis has an influence on treatment effect estimates of randomised trials. DESIGN: Meta-epidemiological study. DATA SOURCES: Medline, via PubMed, searched between 2006 and 2010; 43 systematic reviews of interventions and 310 randomised trials were included. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: From each year searched, random selection of 5% of intervention reviews with a meta-analysis that included at least one trial that deviated from the standard intention to treat approach. Basic characteristics of the systematic reviews and randomised trials were extracted. Information on the reporting of intention to treat analysis, outcome data, risk of bias items, post-randomisation exclusions, and funding were extracted from each trial. Trials were classified as: ITT (reporting the standard intention to treat approach), mITT (reporting a deviation from the standard approach), and no ITT (reporting no approach). Within each meta-analysis, treatment effects were compared between mITT and ITT trials, and between mITT and no ITT trials. The ratio of odds ratios was calculated (value <1 indicated larger treatment effects in mITT trials than in other trial categories). RESULTS: 50 meta-analyses and 322 comparisons of randomised trials (from 84 ITT trials, 118 mITT trials, and 108 no ITT trials; 12 trials contributed twice to the analysis) were examined. Compared with ITT trials, mITT trials showed a larger intervention effect (pooled ratio of odds ratios 0.83 (95% confidence interval 0.71 to 0.96), P=0.01; between meta-analyses variance τ(2)=0.13). Adjustments for sample size, type of centre, funding, items of risk of bias, post-randomisation exclusions, and variance of log odds ratio yielded consistent results (0.80 (0.69 to 0.94), P=0.005; τ(2)=0.08). After exclusion of five influential studies, results remained consistent (0.85 (0.75 to 0.98); τ(2)=0.08). The comparison between mITT trials and no ITT trials showed no statistical difference between the two groups (adjusted ratio of odds ratios 0.92 (0.70 to 1.23); τ(2)=0.57). CONCLUSIONS: Trials that deviated from the intention to treat analysis showed larger intervention effects than trials that reported the standard approach. Where an intention to treat analysis is impossible to perform, authors should clearly report who is included in the analysis and attempt to perform multiple imputations.

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 · 10.1136/bmj.h2445

Cites

100 of 100 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Abraha, I., Cherubini, A., Cozzolino, F., De Florio, R., Luchetta, M. L., Rimland, J. M., Folletti, I., Marchesi, M., Germani, A., Orso, M., Eusebi, P., & Montedori, A.
Affiliations
  • Regione Umbria (IT)
  • Istituto Nazionale di Riposo e Cura per Anziani (IT)
  • University of Perugia (IT)
  • Azienda Ospedaliera di Perugia (IT)
Corresponding author
Abraha, I.
Venue
BMJ
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2015-05-27
Volume
350
Issue
may27 2
Pages
h2445-h2445
ISSN
1756-1833 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W626841314
Cited by
165
References
100
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 24 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 19 · 2018: 16 · 2017: 29 · 2016: 13 · 2015: 1
FWCI
17.74
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by-nc
Locations
  • BMJ (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Università Politecnica delle Marche (Università Politecnica delle Marche) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Ministero della Salute
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Advanced Causal Inference Techniques
Keywords
intention-to-treat analysis, randomised trials, treatment effect estimates, meta-epidemiology, risk of bias, trial reporting quality, meta-analysis bias, odds ratio bias, center effects, sample size adjustment, CONSORT, STROBE, risk of bias assessment tools
MeSH terms
Humans, Bias, Odds Ratio, Epidemiologic Studies, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Treatment Outcome, Intention to Treat Analysis

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