Deviation from intention to treat analysis in randomised trials and treatment effect estimates: meta-epidemiological study
Open Access
- 27 May 2015
- Vol. 350 (may27 2), h2445
- https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.h2445
Abstract
Objective To examine whether deviation from the standard intention to treat analysis has an influence on treatment effect estimates of randomised trials. Design Meta-epidemiological study. Data sources Medline, via PubMed, searched between 2006 and 2010; 43 systematic reviews of interventions and 310 randomised trials were included. Eligibility criteria for selecting studies From each year searched, random selection of 5% of intervention reviews with a meta-analysis that included at least one trial that deviated from the standard intention to treat approach. Basic characteristics of the systematic reviews and randomised trials were extracted. Information on the reporting of intention to treat analysis, outcome data, risk of bias items, post-randomisation exclusions, and funding were extracted from each trial. Trials were classified as: ITT (reporting the standard intention to treat approach), mITT (reporting a deviation from the standard approach), and no ITT (reporting no approach). Within each meta-analysis, treatment effects were compared between mITT and ITT trials, and between mITT and no ITT trials. The ratio of odds ratios was calculated (value . Results 50 meta-analyses and 322 comparisons of randomised trials (from 84 ITT trials, 118 mITT trials, and 108 no ITT trials; 12 trials contributed twice to the analysis) were examined. Compared with ITT trials, mITT trials showed a larger intervention effect (pooled ratio of odds ratios 0.83 (95% confidence interval 0.71 to 0.96), P=0.01; between meta-analyses variance τ2=0.13). Adjustments for sample size, type of centre, funding, items of risk of bias, post-randomisation exclusions, and variance of log odds ratio yielded consistent results (0.80 (0.69 to 0.94), P=0.005; τ2=0.08). After exclusion of five influential studies, results remained consistent (0.85 (0.75 to 0.98); τ2=0.08). The comparison between mITT trials and no ITT trials showed no statistical difference between the two groups (adjusted ratio of odds ratios 0.92 (0.70 to 1.23); τ2=0.57). Conclusions Trials that deviated from the intention to treat analysis showed larger intervention effects than trials that reported the standard approach. Where an intention to treat analysis is impossible to perform, authors should clearly report who is included in the analysis and attempt to perform multiple imputations.This publication has 96 references indexed in Scilit:
- Systematic Review of the Comparative Effectiveness of Antiepileptic Drugs for FibromyalgiaThe Journal of Pain, 2011
- Modified versus standard intention-to-treat reporting: Are there differences in methodological quality, sponsorship, and findings in randomized trials? A cross-sectional studyTrials, 2011
- A literature-based meta-analysis taxane-based doublet versus single-agent taxane chemotherapy in patients with advanced breast cancerZeitschrift für Krebsforschung und Klinische Onkologie, 2010
- Efficacy of live attenuated influenza vaccine in children: A meta-analysis of nine randomized clinical trialsVaccine, 2009
- Assessment of regression-based methods to adjust for publication bias through a comprehensive simulation studyBMC Medical Research Methodology, 2009
- Efficacy and toxicity of methotrexate (MTX) monotherapy versus MTX combination therapy with non-biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs in rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic review and meta-analysisAnnals Of The Rheumatic Diseases, 2008
- A Meta-Analysis of the Efficacy of Sulfasalazine in Comparison with 5-Aminosalicylates in the Induction of Improvement and Maintenance of Remission in Patients with Ulcerative ColitisDigestive Diseases and Sciences, 2008
- A phase III randomized comparison of lapatinib plus capecitabine versus capecitabine alone in women with advanced breast cancer that has progressed on trastuzumab: updated efficacy and biomarker analysesBreast Cancer Research and Treatment, 2008
- Optimal search strategies for retrieving systematic reviews from Medline: analytical surveyBMJ, 2004