Critical assessment of intent-to-treat analyses

Journal of Medical Economics

Volumn 10, Issue 2, 2007, Pages 171-177

  Shaya, Fadia T ^a   Gu, Anna ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND SCHOOL OF PHARMACY   (United States)

Author keywords

Intent to treat analyses; Randomised clinical trial; Statistics

Indexed keywords

ANALYTIC METHOD; CLINICAL ASSESSMENT; INTENT TO TREAT ANALYSIS; PATIENT COMPLIANCE; REVIEW; VALIDITY;

EID: 34447561789     PISSN: 13696998     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3111/200710171177     Document Type: Review

References (10)

1. Schwartz D, Lellouch J. Explanatory and pragmatic attitudes in therapeutical trials. Journal of Chronic Diseases 1967; 20: 637-648.
2. Fisher LD, Dixon, DO et al. Intention-to-treat in clinical trials. In: Peace KE (Ed.). Statistical Issues in Drug Research and Development. Marcel Dekker, 1990.
3. Ellenberg JH. Intent-to-treat analysis versus as-treated analysis. Drug Information Journal 1996; 30: 535-544.
4. Ebbutt AF, Firth L. Practical issues in equivalence trials. Statistics in Medicine 1998; 7: 1691-1701.
5. Matilde Sanchez M, Chen X. Choosing the analysis population in non-inferiority studies: per protocol or intent-to-treat. Statistics in Medicine 2006; 25(7): 1169-1181.
6. Sheiner LB. Is intent-to-treat analysis always (ever) enough? British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology 2000; 54: 203-211.
7. Lachin JM. Statistical considerations in the intent-to-treat principle. Controlled Clinical Trials 2000; 21: 167-189.
8. Begg C, Cho M, Eastwood S et al. Improving the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials. The CONSORT statement. Journal of the American Medical Association 1996; 276(8):637-639.
9. Sackett D, Gent M. Controversy in counting and attributing events in clinical trials. New England Journal of Medicine 1979; 301: 1410-1412.
10. Hlatky MA, Owens DK, Sanders GD. Cost-effectiveness as an outcome in randomized clinical trials. Clinical Trials 2006; 3: 543-551.