After exclusion from the 2589 patients within the ITT-population, the Per-Protocol analysis was performed in 2370 patients and the Pre-Defined analysis within 1133 patients. There was no significant difference in 4-h survival of patients between the mechanical-CPR group and the manual-CPR group ...
PP)分析,EAC组和EFA组临床症状缓解率分别为:上腹痛100%vs.100%、反酸90.9%vs.as-treated cohort治疗组分析和意向性治疗原则（Intention-tO-Treat,ITT）分析
Assessing per-protocol (PP) treatment efficacy on a time-to-event endpoint is a common objective of randomized clinical trials. The typical analysis uses the same method employed for the intention-to-treat analysis (e.g., standard survival analysis) applied to the subgroup meeting protocol ...
AnswersAnswer d would result in a trial participant being included in the per protocol analysis, whereas a, b, c, and e would not.The effectiveness of 4% dimeticone lotion compared with 0.5% phenothrin liquid in treating head louse infestation was invest
Overall survival (OS) was analyzed according to treatment strategy (NAT versus US) and analytic methods (intention-to-treat analysis (ITT) and per-protocol analysis (PP)). In 14 studies, 2,699 and 6,992 patients were treated with NAT and US, respectively. Although PP analysis showed the ...
In some cases, the analysis population appropriately differed from the period during which efficacy events were tracked. HR indicates hazard ratio; ITT, intention to treat; NMCR, nonmajor clinically relevant; PP, per-protocol; ROCKET AF, Rivaroxaban Once Daily Oral Direct ...
Coefficients from Intent-to-Treat (ITT) and Per-Protocol (PP) Analysis of Adherence.Susan A. StonerPamela B. ArenellaChristian S. Hendershot
Plan Per-protocol (PP) Causal Inference Analysis Addressing Intercurrent Events Following the Targeted Learning Roadmapdoi:10.1007/978-3-031-65948-5_10Intercurrent events, such as deviations from ideal study protocols involving treatment non-adherence, changes or missing data may be common in ...
In terms of the ARR, ITT analysis yielded the more conservative point estimate and lower CI limit in 83 (50.6%) and 92 (56.1%) comparisons respectively. The lower CI limits in ITT analysis favored the control arm more than in PP analysis (median of 7.5% vs. -6.9%,p=0.0402). CIs ...
It has often been said that ITT analysis tends to be anti-conservative in demonstrating non-inferiority, suggesting that per-protocol (PP) analysis may be preferable for non-inferiority trials, despite the inherent bias of such analyses. We propose using randomization-based g-estimation analyses ...