EDUCATION
Why Do Researchers Fuss about “Intention-to-treat” Analysis ?
Randomized trials rely on balanced groups, and that balance hinges on randomization. When participants cross over, deviate from treatment, or drop out, that balance becomes vulnerable, making results harder to interpret. Two analytic approaches often appear in trial reports: intention-to-treat, which keeps participants in their original groups regardless of adherence, and per-protocol, which analyzes only those who followed the plan. Per-protocol can appear appealing but risks bias by excluding those who deviated for reasons tied to prognosis or adverse effects. Intention-to-treat preserves the benefits of randomization and is essential for unbiased estimates, though it cannot solve the separate challenge of missing outcomes when participants are lost to follow-up.
Already have an account? Log in
Unlock the Full original article
You have access to 4 more FREE articles this month.
Click below to unlock and view this original article
Unlock Now
Critical appraisals of the latest, high-impact randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews in orthopaedics
Access to OrthoEvidence podcast content, including collaborations with the Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, interviews with internationally recognized surgeons, and roundtable discussions on orthopaedic news and topics
Subscription to The Pulse, a twice-weekly evidence-based newsletter designed to help you make better clinical decisions
Exclusive access to original content articles, including in-house systematic reviews, and articles on health research methods and hot orthopaedic topics
Or upgrade today and gain access to all OrthoEvidencecontent for as little as $1.99 per week.
Already have an account? Log in
0 of 4 monthly FREE articles unlocked
