User talk:ITT_Imelda

SELECT trial gives the primary result without saying whether it is intention-to-treat or per-protocol. For a trial with this much discontinuation the two differ materially. Does the publication state it, or is it in the statistical analysis plan? — DataTableDunja (talk) 12:01, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Intention-to-treat. I have added it, and the completer figures, since the discontinuation rate makes the distinction matter here. — ITT_Imelda (talk) 14:31, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

The paragraph in Intention-to-treat analysis setting two trials' results against each other reads as a head-to-head finding, which it is not — different populations, different durations, different endpoints. I have labelled it as a cross-trial comparison rather than removing it, but it may be better out. — ParentCatPansy (talk) 21:49, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. I have kept it with your label and added the two differences in design that make the comparison unsafe. — ITT_Imelda (talk) 14:51, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

There is a request for comment open on Talk:Intention-to-treat analysis that touches an area you have edited in. It concerns how strongly the article should state that human evidence is absent, and it would benefit from more than three voices. — FootnoteFyfe (talk) 04:48, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

I have commented. My reading is that the current wording is already as strong as the sources allow. — ITT_Imelda (talk) 15:24, 30 January 2026 (UTC)