Intention-to-treat analysis US Medical PG Practice Questions and MCQs
Practice US Medical PG questions for Intention-to-treat analysis. These multiple choice questions (MCQs) cover important concepts and help you prepare for your exams.
Intention-to-treat analysis US Medical PG Question 1: Researchers are studying the effects of a new medication for the treatment of type 2 diabetes. A randomized group of 100 subjects is given the new medication 1st for 2 months, followed by a washout period of 2 weeks, and then administration of the gold standard medication for 2 months. Another randomized group of 100 subjects is given the gold standard medication 1st for 2 months, followed by a washout period of 2 weeks, and then administration of the new medication for 2 months. What is the main disadvantage of this study design?
- A. Hawthorne effect
- B. Increasing selection bias
- C. Increasing confounding bias
- D. Decreasing power
- E. Carryover effect (Correct Answer)
Intention-to-treat analysis Explanation: ***Carryover effect***
- The primary disadvantage here is the **carryover effect**, where the effects of the first treatment (new medication or gold standard) may persist into the period when the second treatment is administered, even after a washout period.
- This can **mask or alter the true effect** of the second treatment, making it difficult to accurately assess their individual efficacy.
*Hawthorne effect*
- The **Hawthorne effect** refers to subjects improving their behavior or performance in response to being observed or studied, not specifically an issue with sequential treatment administration.
- It would affect both groups equally and doesn't explain a disadvantage inherent to the crossover design itself.
*Increasing selection bias*
- **Selection bias** occurs when the randomization process fails to create comparable groups, but this study design involves **randomization** into two groups, and then a crossover, which typically aims to *reduce* selection bias by having each participant serve as their own control.
- The sequential administration within a randomized crossover design actually helps to mitigate selection bias between treatment arms.
*Increasing confounding bias*
- **Confounding bias** occurs when an unmeasured variable is associated with both the exposure and the outcome, distorting the observed relationship.
- This crossover design, where each participant receives both treatments, is intended to *reduce* confounding by inter-individual variability, as each subject acts as their own control, rather than increasing it.
*Decreasing power*
- **Power** is the ability of a study to detect a true effect if one exists. Crossover designs often *increase* statistical power compared to parallel designs because each participant receives both treatments, reducing inter-individual variability.
- This design typically requires a smaller sample size to achieve the same power as a parallel group study, so decreased power is not a disadvantage.
Intention-to-treat analysis US Medical PG Question 2: A research team develops a new monoclonal antibody checkpoint inhibitor for advanced melanoma that has shown promise in animal studies as well as high efficacy and low toxicity in early phase human clinical trials. The research team would now like to compare this drug to existing standard of care immunotherapy for advanced melanoma. The research team decides to conduct a non-randomized study where the novel drug will be offered to patients who are deemed to be at risk for toxicity with the current standard of care immunotherapy, while patients without such risk factors will receive the standard treatment. Which of the following best describes the level of evidence that this study can offer?
- A. Level 1
- B. Level 3 (Correct Answer)
- C. Level 5
- D. Level 4
- E. Level 2
Intention-to-treat analysis Explanation: ***Level 3***
- A **non-randomized controlled trial** like the one described, where patient assignment to treatment groups is based on specific characteristics (risk of toxicity), falls into Level 3 evidence.
- This level typically includes **non-randomized controlled trials** and **well-designed cohort studies** with comparison groups, which are prone to selection bias and confounding.
- The study compares two treatments but lacks randomization, making it Level 3 evidence.
*Level 1*
- Level 1 evidence is the **highest level of evidence**, derived from **systematic reviews and meta-analyses** of multiple well-designed randomized controlled trials or large, high-quality randomized controlled trials.
- The described study is explicitly stated as non-randomized, ruling out Level 1.
*Level 2*
- Level 2 evidence involves at least one **well-designed randomized controlled trial** (RCT) or **systematic reviews** of randomized trials.
- The current study is *non-randomized*, which means it cannot be classified as Level 2 evidence, as randomization is a key criterion for this level.
*Level 4*
- Level 4 evidence includes **case series**, **case-control studies**, and **poorly designed cohort or case-control studies**.
- While the study is non-randomized, it is a controlled comparative trial rather than a case series or retrospective case-control study, placing it at Level 3.
*Level 5*
- Level 5 evidence is the **lowest level of evidence**, typically consisting of **expert opinion** without explicit critical appraisal, or based on physiology, bench research, or animal studies.
- While the drug was initially tested in animal studies, the current human comparative study offers a higher level of evidence than expert opinion or preclinical data.
Intention-to-treat analysis US Medical PG Question 3: A researcher is trying to determine whether a newly discovered substance X can be useful in promoting wound healing after surgery. She conducts this study by enrolling the next 100 patients that will be undergoing this surgery and separating them into 2 groups. She decides which patient will be in which group by using a random number generator. Subsequently, she prepares 1 set of syringes with the novel substance X and 1 set of syringes with a saline control. Both of these sets of syringes are unlabeled and the substances inside cannot be distinguished. She gives the surgeon performing the surgery 1 of the syringes and does not inform him nor the patient which syringe was used. After the study is complete, she analyzes all the data that was collected and performs statistical analysis. This study most likely provides which level of evidence for use of substance X?
- A. Level 3
- B. Level 1 (Correct Answer)
- C. Level 4
- D. Level 5
- E. Level 2
Intention-to-treat analysis Explanation: ***Level 1***
- The study design described is a **randomized controlled trial (RCT)**, which is considered the **highest level of evidence (Level 1)** in the hierarchy of medical evidence.
- Key features like **randomization**, **control group**, and **blinding (double-blind)** help minimize bias and strengthen the validity of the findings.
*Level 2*
- Level 2 evidence typically comprises **well-designed controlled trials without randomization** (non-randomized controlled trials) or **high-quality cohort studies**.
- While strong, they do not possess the same level of internal validity as randomized controlled trials.
*Level 3*
- Level 3 evidence typically includes **case-control studies** or **cohort studies**, which are observational designs and carry a higher risk of bias compared to RCTs.
- These studies generally do not involve randomization or intervention assignment by the researchers.
*Level 4*
- Level 4 evidence is usually derived from **case series** or **poor quality cohort and case-control studies**.
- These studies provide descriptive information or investigate associations without strong control for confounding factors.
*Level 5*
- Level 5 evidence is the **lowest level of evidence**, consisting of **expert opinion** or **animal research/bench research**.
- This level lacks human clinical data or systematic investigative rigor needed for higher evidence levels.
Intention-to-treat analysis US Medical PG Question 4: A pharmaceutical company conducts a randomized clinical trial to demonstrate that their new anticoagulant drug, Aclotsaban, prevents more thrombotic events following total knee arthroplasty than the current standard of care. A significant number of patients are lost to follow-up, and many fail to complete treatment according to the study arm to which they were assigned. Despite these protocol deviations, the results for the patients who completed the course of Aclotsaban are encouraging. Which of the following analytical approaches is most appropriate for the primary analysis to establish the efficacy of Aclotsaban?
- A. Intention-to-treat analysis (Correct Answer)
- B. Sub-group analysis
- C. Per-protocol analysis
- D. As-treated analysis
- E. Non-inferiority analysis
Intention-to-treat analysis Explanation: ***Intention-to-treat analysis***
- **Intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis** is the gold standard for the **primary analysis in superiority trials** and includes all patients in the groups to which they were originally randomized, regardless of protocol deviations, loss to follow-up, or treatment discontinuation.
- ITT preserves **randomization balance**, prevents bias from selective dropout (patients may drop out due to adverse effects or lack of efficacy), and provides a **conservative, realistic estimate** of treatment effect in actual clinical practice.
- For **regulatory approval and establishing efficacy**, ITT is the most appropriate primary analysis method even when dropout rates are high, as it maintains the integrity of the randomized comparison.
*Per-protocol analysis*
- **Per-protocol analysis** includes only patients who completed the study exactly as planned without protocol deviations.
- While the encouraging results in completers are noted, per-protocol analysis can **introduce significant bias** by excluding patients who dropped out due to adverse events or lack of efficacy, potentially **overestimating treatment benefit**.
- Per-protocol is typically used as a **secondary/supportive analysis**, not the primary method for establishing superiority.
*As-treated analysis*
- **As-treated analysis** categorizes patients according to the treatment they actually received rather than their randomized assignment.
- This violates the principle of randomization and can introduce **confounding bias**, as actual treatment received may be influenced by prognostic factors.
*Sub-group analysis*
- **Sub-group analysis** evaluates treatment effects within specific patient subsets.
- This is **hypothesis-generating** rather than confirmatory and increases the risk of false-positive findings (multiple comparisons problem) unless pre-specified in the protocol.
*Non-inferiority analysis*
- **Non-inferiority analysis** tests whether a new treatment is not worse than control by more than a pre-specified margin.
- The goal here is to demonstrate **superiority** (better than standard care), not non-inferiority, making this approach inappropriate.
Intention-to-treat analysis US Medical PG Question 5: An investigator is measuring the blood calcium level in a sample of female cross country runners and a control group of sedentary females. If she would like to compare the means of the two groups, which statistical test should she use?
- A. Chi-square test
- B. Linear regression
- C. t-test (Correct Answer)
- D. ANOVA (Analysis of Variance)
- E. F-test
Intention-to-treat analysis Explanation: ***t-test***
- A **t-test** is appropriate for comparing the means of two independent groups, such as the blood calcium levels between runners and sedentary females.
- It assesses whether the observed difference between the two sample means is statistically significant or occurred by chance.
*Chi-square test*
- The **chi-square test** is used to analyze categorical data to determine if there is a significant association between two variables.
- It is not suitable for comparing continuous variables like blood calcium levels.
*Linear regression*
- **Linear regression** is used to model the relationship between a dependent variable (outcome) and one or more independent variables (predictors).
- It aims to predict the value of a variable based on the value of another, rather than comparing means between groups.
*ANOVA (Analysis of Variance)*
- **ANOVA** is used to compare the means of **three or more independent groups**.
- Since there are only two groups being compared in this scenario, a t-test is more specific and appropriate.
*F-test*
- The **F-test** is primarily used to compare the variances of two populations or to assess the overall significance of a regression model.
- While it is the basis for ANOVA, it is not the direct test for comparing the means of two groups.
Intention-to-treat analysis US Medical PG Question 6: A neuro-oncology investigator has recently conducted a randomized controlled trial in which the addition of a novel alkylating agent to radiotherapy was found to prolong survival in comparison to radiotherapy alone (HR = 0.7, p < 0.01). A number of surviving participants who took the alkylating agent reported that they had experienced significant nausea from the medication. The investigator surveyed all participants in both the treatment and the control group on their nausea symptoms by self-report rated mild, moderate, or severe. The investigator subsequently compared the two treatment groups with regards to nausea level.
| | Mild nausea | Moderate nausea | Severe nausea |
|---|---|---|---|
| Treatment group (%) | 20 | 30 | 50 |
| Control group (%) | 35 | 35 | 30 |
Which of the following statistical methods would be most appropriate to assess the statistical significance of these results?
- A. Chi-square test (Correct Answer)
- B. Pearson correlation coefficient
- C. Multiple logistic regression
- D. Unpaired t-test
- E. Paired t-test
Intention-to-treat analysis Explanation: **Chi-square test**
- The **Chi-square test** is appropriate for comparing **categorical data** (mild, moderate, severe) between two or more independent groups (treatment vs. control).
- It assesses whether there is a statistically significant association between the two categorical variables (treatment group and nausea severity).
*Pearson correlation coefficient*
- The **Pearson correlation coefficient** is used to measure the **linear relationship** between two **continuous variables**.
- Nausea severity (mild, moderate, severe) is an **ordinal categorical variable**, not a continuous one.
*Multiple logistic regression*
- **Multiple logistic regression** is used to predict a **binary outcome** (e.g., presence or absence of nausea) based on one or more independent variables, which can be continuous or categorical.
- The outcome here is **ordinal categorical** (mild, moderate, severe nausea), not binary. While logistic regression can be adapted for ordinal outcomes, a simpler Chi-square test is more direct for comparing distributions without prediction.
*Unpaired t-test*
- An **unpaired t-test** is used to compare the **means of two independent continuous variables**.
- Nausea levels are categorical, and we are interested in comparing proportions within categories, not means.
*Paired t-test*
- A **paired t-test** is used to compare the **means of two related (paired) continuous variables**.
- The study involves independent treatment and control groups, and the nausea data is categorical, making the paired t-test unsuitable.
Intention-to-treat analysis US Medical PG Question 7: A research group wants to assess the safety and toxicity profile of a new drug. A clinical trial is conducted with 20 volunteers to estimate the maximum tolerated dose and monitor the apparent toxicity of the drug. The study design is best described as which of the following phases of a clinical trial?
- A. Phase 0
- B. Phase III
- C. Phase V
- D. Phase II
- E. Phase I (Correct Answer)
Intention-to-treat analysis Explanation: ***Phase I***
- **Phase I clinical trials** involve a small group of healthy volunteers (typically 20-100) to primarily assess **drug safety**, determine a safe dosage range, and identify side effects.
- The main goal is to establish the **maximum tolerated dose (MTD)** and evaluate the drug's pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic profiles.
*Phase 0*
- **Phase 0 trials** are exploratory studies conducted in a very small number of subjects (10-15) to gather preliminary data on a drug's **pharmacodynamics and pharmacokinetics** in humans.
- They involve microdoses, not intended to have therapeutic effects, and thus cannot determine toxicity or MTD.
*Phase III*
- **Phase III trials** are large-scale studies involving hundreds to thousands of patients to confirm the drug's **efficacy**, monitor side effects, compare it to standard treatments, and collect information that will allow the drug to be used safely.
- These trials are conducted after safety and initial efficacy have been established in earlier phases.
*Phase V*
- "Phase V" is not a standard, recognized phase in the traditional clinical trial classification (Phase 0, I, II, III, IV).
- This term might be used in some non-standard research contexts or for post-marketing studies that go beyond Phase IV surveillance, but it is not a formal phase for initial drug development.
*Phase II*
- **Phase II trials** involve several hundred patients with the condition the drug is intended to treat, focusing on **drug efficacy** and further evaluating safety.
- While safety is still monitored, the primary objective shifts to determining if the drug works for its intended purpose and at what dose.
Intention-to-treat analysis US Medical PG Question 8: An orthopaedic surgeon at a local community hospital has noticed that turnover times in the operating room have been unnecessarily long. She believes that the long wait times may be due to inefficient communication between the surgical nursing staff, the staff in the pre-operative area, and the staff in the post-operative receiving area. She believes a secure communication mobile phone app would help to streamline communication between providers and improve efficiency in turnover times. Which of the following methods is most appropriate to evaluate the impact of this intervention in the clinical setting?
- A. Plan-Do-Study-Act cycle (Correct Answer)
- B. Failure modes and effects analysis
- C. Standardization
- D. Forcing function
- E. Root cause analysis
Intention-to-treat analysis Explanation: ***Plan-Do-Study-Act cycle***
- The **Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) cycle** is a structured, iterative model used for continuous improvement in quality and efficiency, making it ideal for evaluating the impact of a new intervention like a communication app.
- This cycle allows for small-scale testing of changes, observation of results, learning from the observations, and refinement of the intervention before full implementation.
*Failure modes and effects analysis*
- **Failure modes and effects analysis (FMEA)** is a prospective method to identify potential failures in a process, predict their effects, and prioritize actions to prevent them.
- While useful for process improvement, FMEA is typically performed *before* implementing a change to identify risks, rather than to evaluate the impact of an already implemented intervention.
*Standardization*
- **Standardization** involves creating and implementing consistent processes or protocols to reduce variability and improve reliability.
- While the communication app might contribute to standardization, standardization itself is a *method of improvement* rather than a method for *evaluating the impact* of an intervention.
*Forcing function*
- A **forcing function** is a design feature that physically prevents an error from occurring, making it impossible to complete a task incorrectly.
- An app that streamlines communication does not act as a forcing function, as it facilitates a process rather than physically preventing an incorrect action.
*Root cause analysis*
- **Root cause analysis (RCA)** is a retrospective method used to investigate an event that has already occurred (e.g., an adverse event) to identify its underlying causes.
- This method is used *after* a problem has manifested to understand *why* it happened, not to evaluate the *impact* of a new intervention designed to prevent future problems.
Intention-to-treat analysis US Medical PG Question 9: A patient is in the ICU for diabetic ketoacidosis and is currently on an insulin drip. His electrolytes are being checked every hour and his potassium is notable for the following measures:
1. 5.1 mEq/L
2. 5.8 mEq/L
3. 6.1 mEq/L
4. 6.2 mEq/L
5. 5.9 mEq/L
6. 5.1 mEq/L
7. 4.0 mEq/L
8. 3.1 mEq/L
Which of the following is the median potassium value of this data set?
- A. 6.05
- B. 5.10
- C. 5.16
- D. 5.45 (Correct Answer)
- E. 3.10
Intention-to-treat analysis Explanation: ***5.45***
- To find the **median**, first arrange the potassium values in ascending order: 3.1, 4.0, 5.1, 5.1, 5.8, 5.9, 6.1, 6.2.
- Since there are **eight** (an even number) values, the median is the average of the two middle values (the 4th and 5th values): (5.1 + 5.8) / 2 = 10.9 / 2 = **5.45**.
*6.05*
- This value might be obtained by incorrectly averaging a different pair of numbers or miscalculating the average of the sorted data set.
- It is not the correct median for this particular data set of potassium values.
*5.10*
- While 5.1 is present twice in the data set, and is one of the middle values, it is not the **median** because the **median** for an even number of values is the average of the two middle numbers, not just one of them.
- This would be the median if the values were 3.1, 4.0, 5.1, 5.1, 5.1, 5.8, 5.9, 6.1.
*5.16*
- This value does not correspond to any of the numbers in the data set nor does it result from the correct calculation of the **median**.
- It might represent an incorrect average or a miscalculation of a percentile.
*3.10*
- This value is the **minimum** potassium level recorded, not the median.
- The median represents the middle value in a sorted data set, while the minimum is the lowest value.
Intention-to-treat analysis US Medical PG Question 10: A study seeks to investigate the therapeutic efficacy of treating asymptomatic subclinical hypothyroidism in preventing symptoms of hypothyroidism. The investigators found 300 asymptomatic patients with subclinical hypothyroidism, defined as serum thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH) of 5 to 10 μU/mL with normal serum thyroxine (T4) levels. The patients were randomized to either thyroxine 75 μg daily or placebo. Both investigators and study subjects were blinded. Baseline patient characteristics were distributed similarly in the treatment and control group (p > 0.05). Participants' serum T4 and TSH levels and subjective quality of life were evaluated at a 3-week follow-up. No difference was found between the treatment and placebo groups. Which of the following is the most likely explanation for the results of this study?
- A. Observer effect
- B. Berkson bias
- C. Latency period (Correct Answer)
- D. Confounding bias
- E. Lead-time bias
Intention-to-treat analysis Explanation: ***Latency period***
- A **latency period** refers to the time between exposure to a cause (e.g., treatment) and the manifestation of its effects (e.g., symptom improvement). The study's **3-week follow-up is too short** to observe the therapeutic benefits of thyroxine in subclinical hypothyroidism.
- Levothyroxine (T4) has a **half-life of approximately 7 days**, and it typically takes **6-8 weeks or longer** for steady-state levels to be achieved and for clinical symptoms to improve. The slow onset of action for thyroid hormone replacement and the gradual nature of symptom resolution mean a longer observation period (typically 3-6 months) is needed to assess efficacy in hypothyroidism.
- The null results likely reflect insufficient follow-up time rather than lack of treatment effect.
*Observer effect*
- The **observer effect**, or Hawthorne effect, occurs when subjects change their behavior because they know they are being observed. This study used **double-blinding** (both investigators and subjects), which effectively minimizes the observer effect.
- The primary issue here is the lack of observed therapeutic effect due to timing, not a change in behavior due to observation.
*Berkson bias*
- **Berkson bias** is a form of selection bias that arises in case-control studies conducted in hospitals, where the probability of being admitted to the hospital can be affected by both exposure and disease.
- This study is a **randomized controlled trial**, not a case-control study, and the selection of participants does not illustrate this specific bias.
*Confounding bias*
- **Confounding bias** occurs when an extraneous variable is associated with both the exposure and the outcome, distorting the observed relationship. The study states that **baseline patient characteristics were similarly distributed (p > 0.05)**, indicating successful randomization and minimization of confounding.
- While confounding is a common concern in observational studies, the RCT design and reported baseline similarities make it unlikely to be the primary explanation for the null results compared to an insufficient follow-up period.
*Lead-time bias*
- **Lead-time bias** is a form of detection bias where early detection of a disease through screening appears to prolong survival, even if the treatment does not change the course of the disease.
- This study is evaluating the **efficacy of treatment** in asymptomatic individuals with subclinical hypothyroidism, not the effect of screening on survival, making lead-time bias irrelevant to these results.
More Intention-to-treat analysis US Medical PG questions available in the OnCourse app. Practice MCQs, flashcards, and get detailed explanations.
