Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2014 Dec;155(12):2714-2719.
doi: 10.1016/j.pain.2014.09.039. Epub 2014 Oct 2.

Reporting of intention-to-treat analyses in recent analgesic clinical trials: ACTTION systematic review and recommendations

Jennifer S Gewandter  1 , Michael P McDermott, Andrew McKeown, Shannon M Smith, Joseph R Pawlowski, Joseph J Poli, Daniel Rothstein, Mark R Williams, Shay Bujanover, John T Farrar, Ian Gilron, Nathaniel P Katz, Michael C Rowbotham, Dennis C Turk, Robert H Dworkin
Affiliations

Reporting of intention-to-treat analyses in recent analgesic clinical trials: ACTTION systematic review and recommendations

Jennifer S Gewandter et al. Pain. 2014 Dec.

Abstract

The intention-to-treat (ITT) principle states that all subjects in a randomized clinical trial (RCT) should be analyzed in the group to which they were assigned, regardless of compliance with assigned treatment. Analyses performed according to the ITT principle preserve the benefits of randomization and are recommended by regulators and statisticians for analyses of RCTs. The objective of this study was to determine the frequency with which publications of analgesic RCTs in 3 major pain journals report an ITT analysis and the percentage of the author-declared ITT analyses that include all randomized subjects and thereby fulfill the most common interpretation of the ITT principle. RCTs investigating noninvasive, pharmacologic and interventional (eg, nerve blocks, implantable pumps, spinal cord stimulators, surgery) treatments for pain, published between January 2006 and June 2013 (n=173), were included. None of the trials using experimental pain models reported an ITT analysis; 47% of trials investigating clinical pain conditions reported an ITT analysis, and 5% reported a modified ITT analysis. Of the analyses reported as ITT, 67% reported reasons for excluding subjects from the analysis, and 18% of those listing reasons for exclusion did not do so in the Methods section. Such mislabeling can make it difficult to identify traditional ITT analyses for inclusion in meta-analyses. We hope that deficiencies in reporting identified in this study will encourage authors, reviewers, and editors to promote more consistent use of the term "intention to treat" for more accurate reporting of RCT-based evidence for pain treatments.

Keywords: ACTTION; Intention to treat; Systematic review.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. Adetugbo K, Williams H. How well are randomized controlled trials reported in the dermatology literature? Arch Dermatol 2000;136:381-385.
    1. Alshurafa M, Briel M, Akl EA, Haines T, Moayyedi P, Gentles SJ, Rios L, Tran C, Bhatnagar N, Lamontagne F, Walter SD, Guyatt GH. Inconsistent definitions for intention-to-treat in relation to missing outcome data: systematic review of the methods literature. PLoS One 2012;7:e49163.
    1. Angrist JD, Imbens GW, Rubin DB. Identification of causal effects using instrumental variables (with Discussion and Rejoinder). J Am Stat Assoc 1996;91:444-472.
    1. Baron G, Boutron I, Giraudeau B, Ravaud P. Violation of the intent-to-treat principle and rate of missing data in superiority trials assessing structural outcomes in rheumatic diseases. Arthritis Rheum 2005;52:1858-1865.
    1. Begg C, Cho M, Eastwood S, Horton R, Moher D, Olkin I, Pitkin R, Rennie D, Schulz KF, Simel D, Stroup DF. Improving the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials. The CONSORT Statement. JAMA 1996;276:637-639.

Publication types

MeSH terms