What question did this study set out to answer?

To examine how frequently and accurately orthopaedic randomized clinical trials apply the intention-to-treat principle and handle missing data.

Intention-to-Treat Analysis and Accounting for Missing Data in Orthopaedic Randomized Clinical Trials

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark

Authors

Literature survey reveals inadequate intention-to-treat reporting in orthopaedic randomized trials, indicating potential bias in surgical evidence.

To examine how frequently and accurately orthopaedic randomized clinical trials apply the intention-to-treat principle and handle missing data.
Surveyed randomized clinical trials published between January 2005 and August 2008 across eight prominent orthopaedic journals (N=274).
Evaluated whether trials implemented the intention-to-treat principle, adhered to its strict definition, and applied specific techniques to address missing data.
The intention-to-treat principle was reported in 35% (96/274) of trials, with significant differences in adherence across the surveyed journals.
Strict definitions of intention-to-treat were fulfilled in only 47% (45/96) of trials claiming its use, while 44 trials excluded patients lost to follow-up, particularly in surgical interventions.
The last observation carried forward method was the most prevalent technique used to account for missing participant data.

Herman et al. (2009) studied this question.

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark

Literature survey reveals inadequate intention-to-treat reporting in orthopaedic randomized trials, indicating potential bias in surgical evidence.