Literature DB >> 11867132

Allocation concealment in randomised trials: defending against deciphering.

Kenneth F Schulz1, David A Grimes.   

Abstract

Proper randomisation rests on adequate allocation concealment. An allocation concealment process keeps clinicians and participants unaware of upcoming assignments. Without it, even properly developed random allocation sequences can be subverted. Within this concealment process, the crucial unbiased nature of randomised controlled trials collides with their most vexing implementation problems. Proper allocation concealment frequently frustrates clinical inclinations, which annoys those who do the trials. Randomised controlled trials are anathema to clinicians. Many involved with trials will be tempted to decipher assignments, which subverts randomisation. For some implementing a trial, deciphering the allocation scheme might frequently become too great an intellectual challenge to resist. Whether their motives indicate innocent or pernicious intents, such tampering undermines the validity of a trial. Indeed, inadequate allocation concealment leads to exaggerated estimates of treatment effect, on average, but with scope for bias in either direction. Trial investigators will be crafty in any potential efforts to decipher the allocation sequence, so trial designers must be just as clever in their design efforts to prevent deciphering. Investigators must effectively immunise trials against selection and confounding biases with proper allocation concealment. Furthermore, investigators should report baseline comparisons on important prognostic variables. Hypothesis tests of baseline characteristics, however, are superfluous and could be harmful if they lead investigators to suppress reporting any baseline imbalances.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2002        PMID: 11867132     DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(02)07750-4

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Lancet        ISSN: 0140-6736            Impact factor:   79.321


  195 in total

Review 1.  Triphasic versus monophasic oral contraceptives for contraception.

Authors:  Huib A A M Van Vliet; David A Grimes; Laureen M Lopez; Kenneth F Schulz; Frans M Helmerhorst
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2011-11-09

2.  How to spot bias and other potential problems in randomised controlled trials.

Authors:  S C Lewis; C P Warlow
Journal:  J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry       Date:  2004-02       Impact factor: 10.154

Review 3.  How to assess epidemiological studies.

Authors:  J H Zaccai
Journal:  Postgrad Med J       Date:  2004-03       Impact factor: 2.401

4.  The Childhood Adenotonsillectomy Trial (CHAT): rationale, design, and challenges of a randomized controlled trial evaluating a standard surgical procedure in a pediatric population.

Authors:  Susan Redline; Raouf Amin; Dean Beebe; Ronald D Chervin; Susan L Garetz; Bruno Giordani; Carole L Marcus; Renee H Moore; Carol L Rosen; Raanan Arens; David Gozal; Eliot S Katz; Ronald B Mitchell; Hiren Muzumdar; H G Taylor; Nina Thomas; Susan Ellenberg
Journal:  Sleep       Date:  2011-11-01       Impact factor: 5.849

Review 5.  Laparoscopic versus open appendectomy in adults with complicated appendicitis: systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Georgios Markides; Daren Subar; Kallingal Riyad
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2010-09       Impact factor: 3.352

Review 6.  The relationship between study sponsorship, risks of bias, and research outcomes in atrazine exposure studies conducted in non-human animals: Systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  L Bero; A Anglemyer; H Vesterinen; D Krauth
Journal:  Environ Int       Date:  2015-12-13       Impact factor: 9.621

7.  Virtual reality robotic surgery simulation curriculum to teach robotic suturing: a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Daniel J Kiely; Walter H Gotlieb; Susie Lau; Xing Zeng; Vanessa Samouelian; Agnihotram V Ramanakumar; Helena Zakrzewski; Sonya Brin; Shannon A Fraser; Pira Korsieporn; Laura Drudi; Joshua Z Press
Journal:  J Robot Surg       Date:  2015-05-16

Review 8.  Oral purified bacterial extracts in acute respiratory tract infections in childhood: a systematic quantitative review.

Authors:  Claudia Steurer-Stey; Leonie Lagler; Daniel A Straub; Johann Steurer; Lucas M Bachmann
Journal:  Eur J Pediatr       Date:  2006-11-18       Impact factor: 3.183

Review 9.  Comparison of descriptions of allocation concealment in trial protocols and the published reports: cohort study.

Authors:  Julie Pildal; An-Wen Chan; Asbjørn Hróbjartsson; Elisabeth Forfang; Douglas G Altman; Peter C Gøtzsche
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2005-04-07

10.  The impact of the CONSORT statement on reporting of randomized clinical trials in psychiatry.

Authors:  Changsu Han; Kyung-phil Kwak; David M Marks; Chi-Un Pae; Li-Tzy Wu; Kamal S Bhatia; Prakash S Masand; Ashwin A Patkar
Journal:  Contemp Clin Trials       Date:  2008-11-30       Impact factor: 2.226

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.