|
ITT
|
826 (8)
|
|
No ITT
|
238 (2.3)
|
|
PP
|
88 (0.9)
|
|
ITT, LOCF
|
87 (0.8)
|
|
LOCF
|
67 (0.7)
|
|
ITT not reported
|
47 (0.5)
|
|
ITT, PP
|
34 (0.3)
|
|
Completer analysis
|
27 (0.2)
|
|
mITT
|
25 (0.2)
|
|
Sensitivity analysis
|
15 (0.1)
|
|
BOCF
|
12 (0.1)
|
|
ITT, BOCF
|
8 (0.08)
|
|
Analysis not described
|
6 (0.06)
|
|
Available case analysis
|
5 (0.05)
|
|
ITT, Completer analysis
|
5 (0.05)
|
|
LOCF, BOCF
|
5 (0.05)
|
|
ITT analysis may have been of value
|
4 (0.04)
|
|
ITT, PP, LOCF
|
4 (0.04)
|
|
ITT, LOCF, WOCF
|
4 (0.04)
|
|
LOCF, PP
|
4 (0.04)
|
|
Partial ITT
|
4 (0.04)
|
|
WOCF
|
3 (0.03)
|
|
Unclear whether LOCF was used
|
3 (0.03)
|
|
ITT inadequate
|
3 (0.03)
|
|
Some participants were excluded from analysis
|
3 (0.03)
|
|
No ITT, PP
|
3 (0.03)
|
|
BOCF, WOCF
|
2 (0.02)
|
|
ITT, LOCF, NRI
|
2 (0.02)
|
|
No LOCF
|
2 (0.02)
|
|
We have not been able to re-analyse the outcomes for all of the enrolled infants (ITT)
|
1 (0.01)
|
|
LOCF, Sensitivity analysis
|
1 (0.01)
|
|
ITT, PP, LOCF, Sensitivity analysis
|
1 (0.01)
|
|
The trial states that the analysis was performed on an ITT basis, but the data seems to have been analysed on-treatment
|
1 (0.01)
|
|
ITT analysis possible
|
1 (0.01)
|
|
ITT analysis conducted but unclear how missing data were dealt with
|
1 (0.01)
|
|
PP, FAS
|
1 (0.01)
|
|
It is likely that the principle of ITT analysis was violated
|
1 (0.01)
|
|
Statistical analysis used the APT
|
1 (0.01)
|
|
Missing outcome data imputed in analysis
|
1 (0.01)
|
|
True ITT analysis was difficult
|
1 (0.01)
|
|
Missing participants were omitted from the analysis
|
1 (0.01)
|
|
Although the study was set up to be analysed on ITT basis, the participants with missing outcomes were not included in the primary analysis
|
1 (0.01)
|
|
ITT done only for P value
|
1 (0.01)
|
|
Not strict ITT analysis
|
1 (0.01)
|
|
mITT, but unclear how missing data were dealt with
|
1 (0.01)
|
|
ITT, WOCF
|
1 (0.01)
|
|
mITT, LOCF
|
1 (0.01)
|
|
mITT, PP
|
1 (0.01)
|
|
Equal distribution among groups, ITT analysis not necessary
|
1 (0.01)
|
|
It was unclear if data analysis was PP or ITT
|
1 (0.01)
|
|
The results are presented as available case analysis rather than ITT. The authors present a sensitivity analysis
|
1 (0.01)
|
|
No information about whether an ITT analysis was undertaken and, if so, how missing data were imputed
|
1 (0.01)
|
|
This is an “as treated” as opposed to an ITT analysis
|
1 (0.01)
|
|
LOCF, BOCF, SOCF
|
1 (0.01)
|
|
ITT, PP, mITT
|
1 (0.01)
|
|
ITT, No sensitivity analysis
|
1 (0.01)
|
|
LOCF, Completer analysis
|
1 (0.01)
|
|
Large number of cross-overs made ITT impossible after the first phase
|
1 (0.01)
|
|
Unclear if ITT
|
1 (0.01)
|
|
ITT, PP, Sensitivity analysis
|
1 (0.01)
|
|
No ITT, Completer analysis
|
1 (0.01)
|
|
No mention of how missing data from participants who dropped out were dealt with, e.g. ITT analysis
|
1 (0.01)
|
|
ITT, Sensitivity analysis
|
1 (0.01)
|
|
No sensitivity analysis
|
1 (0.01)
|
|
LOCF, WOCF
|
1 (0.01)
|
