Talk:Intention-to-treat analysis

Statistics Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Statistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of statistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.StatisticsWikipedia:WikiProject StatisticsTemplate:WikiProject StatisticsStatistics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Mathematics Low‑priority

	Mathematics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mathematics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MathematicsWikipedia:WikiProject MathematicsTemplate:WikiProject Mathematicsmathematics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-priority on the project's priority scale.

Hyphens

Shouldn't it be intention-to-treat analysis? Without the hyphens, it sounds like someone's intention, when that person desires to treat analysis (whatever it might mean to "treat analysis"). --Trovatore (talk) 21:05, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like that page already exists and redirects here. I think you're right. Go ahead and change the redirect so that's the page and this redirects there.--Thosjleep (talk) 18:13, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Example

The 2nd paragraph of the "Example" section begins with "For example". But it isn't clear what it is an example of. It doesn't appear to be about what was discussed in the first paragraph. Ricklaman (talk) 05:32, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not an example of anything. It says example in the title but continues to describe what ITT is in abstract terms without providing any examples. It's just a confusing article overall that does a really bad job explaining what ITT is. 193.2.216.130 (talk) 12:02, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Issues

The 2nd paragraph of the "Issues" section contains the following: "many clinical trials have excluded participants after the random assignment in their analysis". There is no reason stated for this exclusion, at least in the immediate vicinity. I assume the sub-sections below are examples of (or possibly reasons for) that, or at least connected in some way, but it isn't exactly clear how. Overall, being able to really understand this article seems to presuppose a good deal of prior knowledge or a couple of logical jumps that I find difficult to make. It would be great if someone with the relevant knowledge could add even a couple of extra paragraphs to spell out the arguments. Ricklaman (talk) 05:41, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hard to understand

For me (mathematician but neither a statistician nor in the medical field) this page is very hard to understand. I get the impression that it is written for people who already know what it is, but want to learn some of the finer points.

It might help to use fewer technical terms in the introduction (or explain them) and have a section with a fictional example trial that leads to different conclusions depending on which scheme is used. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.194.252.172 (talk) 12:50, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am doubtful anyone can learn anything from this article. It's beyond confusing. 193.2.216.130 (talk) 12:04, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Intention-to-treat analysis/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

I have three issues with this article.

1. The word crossover links to an article referring to crossover studies, where it is clear from context that the term means something else. Although the word crossover is suggestive, it appears to be a technical term and needs a technical definition. Drop the link and insert an inline definition.

2. The word dropout links to an article that discusses high school dropouts. This is not what is intended by the author. Since the intended meaning is clear, drop the link and insert a discussion of the various dropout modes.

3. There should be some discussion of the effects of these confounding factors on the statistical reliability of Intent to treat analyses.

Substituted at 21:45, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Intention-to-treat analysis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131110154948/http://www.cochrane-net.org/openlearning/html/mod14-4.htm to http://www.cochrane-net.org/openlearning/html/mod14-4.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:20, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]