Statistical considerations in the intent-to-treat principle

Controlled Clinical Trials

Volumn 21, Issue 3, 2000, Pages 167-189

  Lachin, John M ^a  

^a GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Analysis; Design; Effectiveness; Efficacy; Intent to treat; Power; Selection bias

Indexed keywords

METFORMIN; PLACEBO; TACRINE;

ALZHEIMER DISEASE; CLINICAL PROTOCOL; CLINICAL TRIAL; DIABETES MELLITUS; DRUG EFFICACY; GASTROINTESTINAL SYMPTOM; HUMAN; LIVER TOXICITY; METHODOLOGY; MODEL; PATIENT; PROBABILITY; RANDOMIZATION; REVIEW; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS;

EID: 0034061095     PISSN: 01972456     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0197-2456(00)00046-5     Document Type: Article

References (66)

1. Friedman L.M., Furberg C.D., DeMets D.L. Fundamentals of Clinical Trials. 3rd ed:1998;Springer, New York.
2. Temple R., Pledger G.W. The FDA's critique of the Anturane Reinfarction Trial. N Engl J Med. 303:1980;1488-1492.
3. DeMets D.L., Friedman L.M., Furberg C.D. Counting events in clinical trials (letter to the editor). N Engl J Med. 302:1980;924.
4. Sackett D.L., Gent M. Controversy in counting and attributing events in clinical trials. N Engl J Med. 301:1979;1410-1412.
5. Gent M., Sackett D.L. The qualification and disqualification of patients and events in long-term cardiovascular clinical trials. Thrombos Haemostas. 41:1979;123-134.
6. May G.S., DeMets D.L., Friedman L.M., Furberg C., Passamani E. The randomized clinical trial. Bias in analysis Circulation. 64:1981;669-673.
7. Armitage P. Controversies and achievements in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials. 5:1984;67-72.
8. Lee Y.J., Ellenberg J.H., Hirtz D.G., Nelson K.B. Analysis of clinical trials by treatment actually received. Is it really an option? Stat Med. 10:1991;1595-1605.
9. Peduzzi P., Wittes J., Detre K., Holford T. Analysis as-randomized and the problem of nonadherence. An example from the Veterans Affairs Randomized Trial of Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery Stat Med. 15:1993;1185-1195.
10. Peduzzi P., Wittes J., Detre K., Holford T. Intent-to-treat analysis and the problem of crossovers. An example from the Veterans Administration coronary bypass surgery study J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 101:1991;481-487.
11. Newell D.J. Intention-to-treat analysis. Implications for quantitative and qualitative research Int J Epidemiol. 21:1992;837-841.
12. Lavori P.W. Clinical trials in psychiatry. Should protocol deviation censor patient data (with discussion) Neuropsychopharmacology. 6:1992;39-63.
13. Tsiatis A.A. Analysis and interpretation of trial results. intent-to-treat analysis J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 3(Suppl 2):1990;S120-S123.
14. Fisher L, Dixon DO, Herson J, et al. Intention to treat in clinical trials. In: Peace KE, ed. Statistical Issues in Drug Research and Development. New York: Marcel Dekker; 1991; 331-350.
15. Sheiner L.B., Rubin D.B. Intention-to-treat analysis and the goals of clinical trials. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 57:1995;6-15.
16. Rubin D.B. Practical implications of modes of statistical inference for causal effects and the critical role of the assignment mechanism. Biometrics. 47:1991;1213-1234.
17. Rochon J. Supplementing the intent-to-treat analysis. Accounting for covariates observed postrandomization in clinical trials J Am Stat Assoc. 90:1995;292-300.
18. Rochon J. Accounting for covariates observed post-randomization for discrete and continuous repeated measures data. J R Statist Soc B. 58:1996;205-219.
19. Mark S.D., Robins J.M. A method for the analysis of randomized trials with compliance information. An application to the Multiple Risk Factor Intervention Trial Control Clin Trials. 14:1993;79-97.
20. Robins J.M., Tsiatis A.A. Correcting for non-compliance in randomized trials using a rank preserving structural failure time model. Comm Stat A. 20:1991;2609-2631.
21. Efron B., Feldman D. Compliance as an explanatory variable in clinical trials (with discussion). J Am Stat Assoc. 86:1991;9-26.
22. Goetghebeur E., Molenberghs G., Katz J. Estimating the causal effect of compliance on binary outcome in randomized controlled trials. Stat Med. 17:1998;341-355.
23. Rubin D.B. More powerful randomization-based p-values in double-blind trials with noncompliance. Stat Med. 17:1998;387-389.
24. Schwartz D., Lellouch J. Explanatory and pragmatic attitudes in therapeutic trials. J Chron Dis. 20:1967;637-648.
25. Peto R., Pike M.C., Armitage P.et al. Design and analysis of randomized clinical trials requiring prolonged observation of each patient. I. Introduction and design. Br J Cancer. 34:1976;585-612.
26. Little R.J.A., Rubin D.B. Statistical Analysis with Missing Data. 1987;Wiley, New York.
27. Simon G., Simonoff J.S. Diagnostic plots for missing data in least squares regression. J Am Stat Assoc. 81:1986;501-509.
28. Little R.J.A. A test of missing completely at random for multivariate data with missing values. J Am Stat Assoc. 83:1988;1198-1202.
29. Food and Drug Administration. International Conference on Harmonization: Guidance on general considerations for clinical trials. Federal Register 1997; 62(242):66113-66119.
30. Food and Drug Administration. International Conference on Harmonization: Guidance on statistical principles for clinical trials. Federal Register 1998; 63(179):49583-49598.
31. Knapp M.J., Knopman D.S., Solomon P.R.et al. A 30-week randomized controlled trial of high-dose Tacrine in patients with Alzheimer's disease. JAMA. 271:1994;985-991.
32. Wei J.L., Lachin J.M. Two-sample asymptotically distribution-free tests for incomplete multivariate observations. J Am Stat Assoc. 79:1984;653-661.
33. Laird N.M., Ware J.H. Random-effects models for longitudinal data. Biometrics. 38:1982;963-974.
34. Liang K., Zeger S.L. Longitudinal data analysis using generalized linear models. Biometrika. 73:1986;13-22.
35. Little R.J.A. Missing data in longitudinal studies. Stat Med. 7:1988;305-315.
36. Little R.J.A. A class of pattern-mixture models for normal incomplete data. Biometrika. 81:1994;471-483.
37. Little R.J.A. Modeling the drop-out mechanism in repeated-measure studies. J Am Stat Assoc. 90:1995;1112-1121.
38. Hogan J.W., Laird N.M. Intention-to-treat analyses for incomplete repeated measures data. Biometrics. 52:1996;1002-1017.
39. Siddiqui O., Ali M.W. A comparison of the random-effects pattern mixture model with last-observation-carried-forward (LOCF) analysis in longitudinal clinical trials with dropouts. J Biopharm Stat. 8:1998;545-563.
40. Rubin D.B. Multiple Imputation for Nonresponse in Surveys. 1987;Wiley, New York.
41. Lavori P.W., Dawson R., Shera D. A multiple imputation strategy for clinical trials with truncation of patient data. Stat Med. 14:1995;1913-1925.
42. Xie F., Paik M.C. Multiple imputation methods for the missing covariates in generalized estimating equations. Biometrics. 53:1997;1538-1546.
43. Little R.J.A., Yau L. Intent-to-treat analysis for longitudinal studies with drop-outs. Biometrics. 52:1996;1324-1333.
44. Albert J.M., DeMets D.L. On a model-based approach to estimating efficacy in clinical trials. Stat Med. 13:1994;2323-2335.
45. Sommer A., Zeger S.L. On estimating efficacy from clinical trials. Stat Med. 10:1991;45-52. (Erratum. 1994; 13:1897).
46. Cuzick J., Edwards R., Segnan N. Adjusting for non-compliance in randomized clinical trials. Stat Med. 16:1997;1017-1029.
47. Heyting A., Tolboom J.T., Essers J.G. Statistical handling of drop-outs in longitudinal clinical trials. Stat Med. 11:1992;2043-2061.
48. Heyting A., Tolboom J.T., Essers J.G. Author's Reply. Statistical handling of drop-outs in longitudinal clinical trials Stat Med. 12:1993;2248-2250.
49. Smith F. Mixed-model analysis of incomplete longitudinal data from a high-dose trial of tacrine (cognex) in Alzheimer's patient. J Biopharm Stat. 6:1996;59-67.
50. Veberke G., Molenberghs G., Bijnens L., Shaw D. Linear Mixed Models in Practice. 1997;Springer, New York.
51. Marubini E., Valsecchi M.G. Analyzing Survival Data from Clinical Trials and Observational Studies. 1995;Wiley, New York.
52. Wu M.C., Carroll R.J. Estimation and comparison of changes in the presence of informatively right censoring by modeling the censoring process. Biometrics. 44:1988;175-188.
53. Wu M.C., Bailey K.R. Estimation and comparison of changes in the presence of informatively right censoring. Conditional linear model Biometrics. 45:1989;939-955.
54. Schluchter M. Methods for the analysis of informatively censored longitudinal data. Stat Med. 11:1992;1861-1870.
55. Wu M.C., Huntsberger S., Zucker D. Testing for differences in changes in the presence of censoring. Parametric and non-parametric methods Stat Med. 13:1994;635-646.
56. Lachin J.M. Worst-rank score analysis with informatively missing observations in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials. 20:1999;408-422.
57. Lachin J.M. Introduction to sample size determination and power analysis for clinical trials. Control Clin Trials. 2:1981;93-113.
58. Cochran W.G. Planning and Analysis of Observational Studies. 1983;Wiley, New York.
59. Matts J.P., Launer C.A., Nelson E.T.et al. A graphical assessment of the potential impact of losses to follow-up on the validity of study results. Stat Med. 16:1997;1943-1954.
60. Rotnitzky A., Wypij D. A note on the bias of estimators with missing data. Biometrics. 50:1994;1163-1170.
61. Diabetes Control and Complications Trial Research Group The effect of intensive treatment of diabetes on the development and progression of long-term complications in insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus. N Engl J Med. 329:1993;977-986.
62. Diabetes Control and Complications Trial Research Group The relationship of glycemic exposure (HbA1c) to the risk of development and progression of retinopathy in the Diabetes Control and Complications Trial. Diabetes. 44:1995;968-983.
63. Lachin J.M., Foulkes M.A. Evaluation of sample size and power for analyses of survival with allowance for non-uniform patient entry, losses to follow-up, noncompliance and stratification. Biometrics. 42:1986;507-519.
64. Diabetes Control and Complications Trial Research Group Progression of retinopathy with intensive versus conventional treatment in the Diabetes Control and Complication Trial. Ophthalmology. 102:1995;647-661.
65. Diabetes Control and Complications Trial Research Group Implementation of a multi-component process to obtain informed consent in the Diabetes Control and Complications Trial. Control Clin Trials. 10:1989;83-96.
66. The Diabetes Prevention Program. Design and methods for a clinical trial in the prevention of type 2 diabetes Diabetes Care. 22:1999;623-634.