Jump to: Page Content, Site Navigation, Site Search,
You are seeing this message because your web browser does not support basic web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.
| The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below. |
EDITOR
In their survey of all randomised controlled trials
published in 1997 in four major medical journals, Hollis and Campbell found that only 48% of the reports explicitly mentioned intention to
treat analysis.1 In a considerable proportion it was
insufficiently described and sometimes inadequately applied. Their
results are confirmed by our assessment of all randomised controlled
trials published between 1993 and 1995 in the same four
journals.2 In addition to our assessment of ethical
issues, we calculated the proportion of randomised controlled trials
reporting intention to treat analysis in accordance with different
descriptive and methodological characteristics.
In our review of 608 randomised controlled trials, we found that 290 of
the trials (47.7%) explicitly mentioned that they applied the
principle of intention to treat analysis. The reporting of this issue
increased slightly between 1993 and 1995 (although the increase was not
significant). Trials with a greater number of participants and those
funded by the pharmaceutical industry were