Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Per-Protocol analyses produced larger treatment effect sizes than intention to treat: a meta-epidemiological study
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Per-Protocol analyses produced larger treatment effect sizes than intention to treat: a meta-epidemiological study
Do you wish to request the book?
Per-Protocol analyses produced larger treatment effect sizes than intention to treat: a meta-epidemiological study
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Per-Protocol analyses produced larger treatment effect sizes than intention to treat: a meta-epidemiological study
2021
Overview
To undertake meta-analysis and compare treatment effects estimated by the intention-to-treat (ITT) method and per-protocol (PP) method in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). PP excludes trial participants who are non-adherent to trial protocol in terms of eligibility, interventions, or outcome assessment.
Five high impact journals were searched for all RCTs published between July 2017 to June 2019. Primary outcome was a pooled estimate that quantified the difference between the treatment effects estimated by the two methods. Results are presented as ratio of odds ratios (ROR). Meta-regression was used to explore the association between level of trial protocol non-adherence and treatment effect. Sensitivity analyses compared results with varying within-study correlations and across various study characteristics.
Random-effects meta-analysis (N = 156) showed that PP estimates were on average 2% greater compared to the ITT estimates (ROR: 1.02, 95% CI: 1.00–1.04, P = 0.03). The divergence further increased with higher degree of protocol non-adherence. Sensitivity analyses reassured consistent results with various within-study correlations and across various study characteristics.
There was evidence of larger treatment effect with PP compared to ITT analysis. PP analysis should not be used to assess the impact of protocol non-adherence in RCTs. Instead, in addition to ITT, investigators should consider randomization based casual method such as Complier Average Causal Effect (CACE).
Publisher
Elsevier Inc,Elsevier Limited
