Dear Researchers,
due to a huge problem analysing the data for a systematic review, i ask for your help!
My topic focuses digital Interventions on cannabis consumption.
Which results should i focus on, when evaluating the data.
Should i just focus on Complete Cases or the ITT-Analysis or both.
For some values studies mentionend significant effects for the CC
but not in the ITT analysis. How can i evaluate this data?
(Does it mean that if a person uses the digital programm as intentend the significant effects apply?)
OR do other factors like attrition bias play a role and the results cannot be transfered to all people who use the program?
Is the ITT-Analysis the best way to draw a conclusion on the efficacy to transfer the results on the general public??
Well basically it comes down to your research question and should preferrably be stated before initiating your searches and data-extraction.
Consider what you are looking for:
If you are looking for the effect of the intervention under the optimal conditions (i.e. Per-Protocol or CC as you use) - efficacy
If you are looking for the effect of providing the intervention under real world conditions (i.e. Intention-To-Treat) - effectiveness
The problem now is that you have already begun to look at your results (or the results of your searches) and you may introduce bias into your analyses. Keep that in mind, and i suggest also describing this in your limitations when reporting on the study.
- if your timeframe (and data) allows i would suggest doing both, and analysing both.
If you need additional suggestions on how to conduct reviews the Cochrane Collaboration has a lot of excellent materials, such as the Cochrane Handbooks.
I would recommend go for ITT data. It closely mirrors the expected number of dropouts in a real-life situation, so ITT analysis reflects the (realistic) expected effect of the intervention in a medical practice setting.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Geoscience
- Atmospheric Sciences
- Climate Science
- Climate Change