CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 9Statistical Methods in Clinical TrialsHistorical Medical Research and TreatmentsAdvanced Causal Inference Techniques

Trial analysis by treatment allocated or by treatment received? Origins of ‘the intention-to-treat principle’ to reduce allocation bias: Part 2

Chalmers, I, Matthews, R, Glasziou, P, Boutron, I, Armitage, P·2023·Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine
DOI 10.1177/01410768231203936
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

By the late 1950s, the key role played by the Medical Research Council (MRC) in the development of controlled clinical trials – and of Hill’s leadership specifically – had become widely recognised. The example that had been set by the MRC during the 1950s led the Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences (CIOMS) to invite Hill to plan and chair a conference on ‘Controlled Clinical Trials’. The conference was convened under the joint auspices of the UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) and the World Health Organization (WHO) ‘to discuss the principles, organization and scope of “controlled clinical trials”, which must be carried out if new methods or preparations used for the treatment of disease are to be accurately assessed clinically

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/01410768231203936

Cites

21 of 21 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • An intention-to-treat analysis population is widely recommended as the preferred analysis population.

    “An intention-to-treat analysis population is defined by the inclusion of outcome data from all participants in their originally allocated group—this is widely recommended as the preferred analysis population.360 419 420”

    From SPIRIT 2025 explanation and elaboration: updated guideline for protocols of randomised trials (2025) · cites this paper as [420]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Chalmers, I., Matthews, R., Glasziou, P., Boutron, I., & Armitage, P.
Affiliations
  • University of Oxford (GB)
  • Aston University (GB)
  • Bond University (AU)
  • Inserm (FR)
  • 2 Reading Road, Wallingford OX10 9DP, UK
Corresponding author
Chalmers, I
ORCID
Venue
Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2023-11
Volume
116
Issue
11
Pages
386-394
ISSN
  • 0141-0768 (ISSN-L)
  • 1758-1095
DOI
10.1177/01410768231203936
OpenAlex
W4388761956
Cited by
9
References
21
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1
FWCI
1.83
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license (tdm)
Locations
  • Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • HAL (submittedVersion)
  • Bond University Research Portal (Bond University) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Historical Medical Research and Treatments
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Advanced Causal Inference Techniques
Keywords
allocation bias, Medical Research Council, Austin Bradford Hill, CIOMS, history of clinical trials
MeSH terms
Humans, Research Design, Bias, Treatment Outcome, Intention, 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