Post-randomisation exclusions: the intention to treat principle and excluding patients from analysis

By D. Fergusson, S. Aaron, G. Guyatt, Paul L. Hebert. British medical journal, 2002

709 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Economics and Econometrics, Statistics and Probability

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/2b2094d263fe14e6e0ea382c53b2561a08e39791

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Economics and Econometrics

1. Julian P. T. Higgins
2. Ian R. White
3. J. Sterne
4. S. Gupta
5. Tianjing Li
6. Sally Hopewell
7. Matthew J. Page
8. Miguel A. Hern'an

In Statistics and Probability

1. Julian P. T. Higgins
2. Ian R. White
3. J. Sterne
4. David Moher
5. Douglas G. Altman
6. Matthew J. Page
7. K. Tilling
8. Tianjing Li

Citations in the corpus

• Intention-to-treat concept: A review (2011, methodology): “[3,4,12,16,17] ITT analysis has been criticized for being too cautious and thus being more susceptible to type II error.[12,15]”
• RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials (2019, background): “The effect of assignment to intervention should be estimated by an intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis that includes all randomised participants.(17) However, estimates of per-protocol effects commonly used in reports of randomised trials are problematic and may be seriously biased.”