Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36916466›Full record

Trial reportClinical trials (London, England)2023

Using modified intention-to-treat as a principal stratum estimator for failure to initiate treatment.

Brennan C Kahan, Ian R White, Mark Edwards, Michael O Harhay

Open access · hybridAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Clinical trials (London, England), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
12.9field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

30 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 38 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Brennan C KahanMRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-9957-0844
Ian R WhiteMRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-6718-7661
Mark EdwardsDepartment of Anaesthesia, University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton, UK.
Michael O HarhayClinical Trials Methods and Outcomes Lab, PAIR (Palliative and Advanced Illness Research) Center, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
MRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL · GBUniversity Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust · GBUniversity of Pennsylvania · US

Funding

Improving the measurement and analysis of long-term, patient-centered outcomes following acute respiratory failureR00HL141678 · NHLBI · UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA · PI HARHAY, MICHAEL OSCAR · 2020 to 2022
$747k
NHLBI NIH HHS R00 HL141678
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundA common intercurrent event affecting many trials is when some participants do not begin their assigned treatment. For example, in a double-blind drug trial, some participants may not receive any dose of study medication. Many trials use a 'modified intention-to-treat' approach, whereby participants who do not initiate treatment are excluded from the analysis. However, it is not clear (a) the estimand being targeted by such an approach and (b) the assumptions necessary for such an approach to be unbiased.

methodsUsing potential outcome notation, we demonstrate that a modified intention-to-treat analysis which excludes participants who do not begin treatment is estimating a

resultsWe identify two key criteria in determining whether the modified intention-to-treat estimator is likely to be unbiased: first, we must be able to measure the participants in each treatment arm who experience the intercurrent event, and second, the assumption that treatment allocation will not affect whether the participant begins treatment must be reasonable. Most double-blind trials will satisfy these criteria, as the decision to start treatment cannot be influenced by the allocation, and we provide an example of an open-label trial where these criteria are likely to be satisfied as well, implying that a modified intention-to-treat analysis which excludes participants who do not begin treatment is an unbiased estimator for the principal stratum effect in these settings. We also give two examples where these criteria will not be satisfied (one comparing an active intervention vs usual care, where we cannot identify which usual care participants would have initiated the active intervention, and another comparing two active interventions in an unblinded manner, where knowledge of the assigned treatment arm may affect the participant's choice to begin or not), implying that a modified intention-to-treat estimator will be biased in these settings.

conclusionA modified intention-to-treat analysis which excludes participants who do not begin treatment can be an unbiased estimator for the principal stratum estimand. Our framework can help identify when the assumptions for unbiasedness are likely to hold, and thus whether modified intention-to-treat is appropriate or not.

Indexed as

Intention to Treat AnalysisClinical ProtocolsDouble-Blind MethodHumansEstimandintercurrent eventmodified intention-to-treatprincipal stratumrandomised controlled trialtreatment initiation

Identifiers

PMID36916466
PMCPMC10262320
OpenAlexW4324129304

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.