Literature DB >> 10440559

Detecting selection bias in randomized clinical trials.

V W Berger1, D V Exner.   

Abstract

Lack of concealment of allocation in randomized clinical trials can invite selection bias, which is the preferential enrollment of specific patients into one treatment group over another. For example, patients more likely to respond may be enrolled only when the next treatment to be assigned is known to be the active treatment, and patients less likely to respond may be enrolled only when the next treatment to be assigned is known to be the control. Despite the fact that selection bias can compromise both the internal and external validity of trials, little methodology has been developed for its detection. An investigator may test the success of the randomization by comparing baseline characteristics across treatment groups, but such test is limited by the potential inability of the measured baseline variables to predict response. A new method for detecting selections bias, based on response data only, is developed for the case in which a small block size, and either unmasking of treatment codes or an open-label design, have compromised the concealment of allocation. This new method complements baseline comparisons, and is sensitive to detect selection bias even in situations in which baseline comparisons are not.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1999        PMID: 10440559     DOI: 10.1016/s0197-2456(99)00014-8

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Control Clin Trials        ISSN: 0197-2456


  36 in total

1.  A simplified formula for quantification of the probability of deterministic assignments in permuted block randomization.

Authors:  Wenle Zhao; Yanqiu Weng
Journal:  J Stat Plan Inference       Date:  2011-01-01       Impact factor: 1.111

2.  Treating depression and substance use: a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Sarah B Hunter; Katherine E Watkins; Kimberly A Hepner; Susan M Paddock; Brett A Ewing; Karen C Osilla; Suzanne Perry
Journal:  J Subst Abuse Treat       Date:  2012-02-01

3.  Applying permutation tests with adjustment for covariates and attrition weights to randomized trials of health-services interventions.

Authors:  Lingqi Tang; Naihua Duan; Ruth Klap; Joan Rosenbaum Asarnow; Thomas R Belin
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2009-01-15       Impact factor: 2.373

4.  A unifying framework for standard and covariate-adaptive randomization procedures based on minimizing suitable imbalance functions.

Authors:  Vance W Berger
Journal:  Contemp Clin Trials       Date:  2013-10-09       Impact factor: 2.226

5.  Assessing the success of masking in acupuncture trials: further insight.

Authors:  Vance W Berger
Journal:  Chin J Integr Med       Date:  2011-07-03       Impact factor: 1.978

6.  A note on masking in the SOX trial.

Authors:  Vance W Berger
Journal:  Clin Trials       Date:  2015-01-27       Impact factor: 2.486

7.  Quality of research: Improper evaluation of the quality of trials of retention rates.

Authors:  C E Jones; V W Berger
Journal:  Br Dent J       Date:  2019-01-25       Impact factor: 1.626

8.  Comparison of statistical and operational properties of subject randomization procedures for large multicenter clinical trial treating medical emergencies.

Authors:  Wenle Zhao; Yunming Mu; Darren Tayama; Sharon D Yeatts
Journal:  Contemp Clin Trials       Date:  2015-01-29       Impact factor: 2.226

9.  Electronic health records as a tool for recruitment of participants' clinical effectiveness research: lessons learned from tobacco cessation.

Authors:  David Fraser; Bruce A Christiansen; Robert Adsit; Timothy B Baker; Michael C Fiore
Journal:  Transl Behav Med       Date:  2013-09       Impact factor: 3.046

10.  Participation in Universal Prevention Programs.

Authors:  Robert Rosenman; Scott Goates; Laura Hill
Journal:  Appl Econ       Date:  2012-01-01
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.