Abstract
This article describes the differences between common analyses for randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Intention-to-treat (ITT) and per-protocol (PP) analyses are common approaches, but readers may also encounter complier average causal effects (CACE) analysis, a newer method that is gaining popularity. Because these analyses answer slightly different research questions, the aim of this article is to help readers of RCTs understand why researchers conduct these different types of analyses and how to interpret the findings. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2021;51(6):314-315. doi:10.2519/jospt.2021.0701.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callMore From: The Journal of orthopaedic and sports physical therapy
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
