SynthesisBMC medical research methodology2026
Non-adherence in randomised controlled trials: empirical comparison of treatment policy and efficacy estimands using individual participant data.
Synthesis in BMC medical research methodology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundNon-adherence to interventions is common in randomized controlled trials (RCTs), complicating the interpretation of treatment effects. The intention-to-treat (ITT) principle estimates the treatment effect of assignment to intervention but does not reflect efficacy among those who adhere. Per-protocol (PP) analyses attempt to address this but introduce selection bias by violating randomisation. The complier average causal effect (CACE) provides an efficacy estimand among compliers while preserving randomisation. This study aimed to provide an empirical comparison of ITT, PP, and CACE approaches using individual participant data (IPD) from trials of depression interventions in primary care.
methodsWe analysed IPD from the Depression in General Practice (Dep-GP) collaboration, comprising seven eligible RCTs with 3,467 participants. Trials reported continuous (depression symptom scores) or binary (treatment response) outcomes. Adherence was defined within the intervention group. We conducted a two-stage IPD meta-analysis to estimate treatment effects under ITT, PP, and CACE. Results were expressed as differences in standardised mean difference (ΔSMD) for continuous outcomes and as ratios of odds ratios (ROR) for binary outcomes. One-stage mixed-effects models were performed as secondary analyses.
resultsFor binary outcomes, both PP and CACE analyses produced larger effects than ITT (ROR for PP vs ITT: 1.09; 95% CI, 1.05–1.14; P < .001; CACE vs ITT: 1.19; 95% CI, 1.00–1.42; P < .05). For continuous outcomes, CACE yielded a larger effect than ITT (ΔSMD = 0.10; 95% CI, 0.01–0.20; P < .05), while PP did not differ from ITT (ΔSMD = 0.03; 95% CI, –0.01 to 0.08; P = .167). Sensitivity analysis, excluding the TREAD trial, yielded larger effect by the PP method (ΔSMD = 0.05; 95% CI, 0.01–0.09; P < .05). DISCUSSION: Our findings demonstrate that CACE provides a causal efficacy estimand that diverges from the treatment policy effect estimated by ITT, while PP yields similar but potentially biased results. This highlights the importance of distinguishing between estimands in the presence of non-adherence and illustrates empirically how they differ in practice.
conclusionsCurrent RCT reporting recommendations should be updated to require routine reporting of CACE alongside ITT, together with adherence information, to provide a more complete and transparent account of treatment effects.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.