Skip to main page content
Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2017 Oct;18(6):1075-1078.
doi: 10.5811/westjem.2017.8.35985. Epub 2017 Sep 18.

Understanding the Intention-to-treat Principle in Randomized Controlled Trials

Affiliations
Free PMC article
Review

Understanding the Intention-to-treat Principle in Randomized Controlled Trials

C Eric McCoy. West J Emerg Med. .
Free PMC article

Abstract

Clinicians, institutions, and policy makers use results from randomized controlled trials to make decisions regarding therapeutic interventions for their patients and populations. Knowing the effect the intervention has on patients in clinical trials is critical for making both individual patient as well as population-based decisions. However, patients in clinical trials do not always adhere to the protocol. Excluding patients from the analysis who violated the research protocol (did not get their intended treatment) can have significant implications that impact the results and analysis of a study. Intention-to-treat analysis is a method for analyzing results in a prospective randomized study where all participants who are randomized are included in the statistical analysis and analyzed according to the group they were originally assigned, regardless of what treatment (if any) they received. This method allows the investigator (or consumer of the medical literature) to draw accurate (unbiased) conclusions regarding the effectiveness of an intervention. This method preserves the benefits of randomization, which cannot be assumed when using other methods of analysis. The risk of bias is increased whenever treatment groups are not analyzed according to the group to which they were originally assigned. If an intervention is truly effective (truth), an intention-to-treat analysis will provide an unbiased estimate of the efficacy of the intervention at the level of adherence in the study. This article will review the "intention-to-treat" principle and its converse, "per-protocol" analysis, and illustrate how using the wrong method of analysis can lead to a significantly biased assessment of the effectiveness of an intervention.

Conflict of interest statement

Conflicts of Interest: By the WestJEM article submission agreement, all authors are required to disclose all affiliations, funding sources and financial or management relationships that could be perceived as potential sources of bias. No author has professional or financial relationships with any companies that are relevant to this study. There are no conflicts of interest or sources of funding to declare.

Figures

Figure
Figure
Hypothetical prospective randomized controlled trial evaluating effectiveness of intervention (A = medical management + surgery) vs. control (B = medical management only) in patients with cardiovascular disease. R, randomization; RR, relative risk; RRR, relative risk reduction.

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by 17 articles

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist GE, et al. GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ. 336(7650):924–6. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Agoritsas T, Vandvik P, Neumann I, et al. Finding current best evidence. In: Guyatt G, Rennie D, Meade MO, Cook D, editors. Users’ guides to the medical literature: a manual for evidence-based clinical practice. 3rd ed. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill; 2015. pp. 29–50.
    1. Sainai KL. Making sense of intention-to-treat. PMR. 2010;2(3):209–13. - PubMed
    1. Montori VM, Guyatt GH. Intention-to-treat principle. CMAJ. 2001;165(10):1339–41. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Gupta SK. Intention-to-treat concept: A review. Perspect Clin Res. 2011;2(3):109–112. - PMC - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources

Feedback