BACKGROUND: In 1979, Zelen described a trial method of randomising participants before acquiring consent in order to enhance recruitment to clinical trials. The method has been criticised ethically due to lack of consent and scientifically due to high crossover rates. This paper reviews recent published trials using this method and describes the reasons authors gave for using the method, examines the crossover rates, and looks at the quality of identified trials. METHODS: Literature review searching for all citations to the relevant Zelen's papers of trials published since 1990 plus inclusion of trials from personal knowledge. RESULTS: We identified 58 relevant trials. The most common justification for the use of Zelen method was to avoid the introduction of bias (e.g., to avoid the Hawthorne effect). Few trialists had explicitly used the design to enhance participant recruitment. Most trials (n=41) experienced some crossover from one group to the other (median crossover=8.9%, mean=13.8%, IQR 2.6% to 15%) although this was usually within acceptable limits. CONCLUSION: The most important reason stated by authors for using Zelen's method was to limit bias. Zelen's method, if carefully used, can avoid 'resentful demoralisation' and the Hawthorne effect biasing a trial. Unlike a previous review, we found that crossover was not a problem for most trials.
BACKGROUND: In 1979, Zelen described a trial method of randomising participants before acquiring consent in order to enhance recruitment to clinical trials. The method has been criticised ethically due to lack of consent and scientifically due to high crossover rates. This paper reviews recent published trials using this method and describes the reasons authors gave for using the method, examines the crossover rates, and looks at the quality of identified trials. METHODS: Literature review searching for all citations to the relevant Zelen's papers of trials published since 1990 plus inclusion of trials from personal knowledge. RESULTS: We identified 58 relevant trials. The most common justification for the use of Zelen method was to avoid the introduction of bias (e.g., to avoid the Hawthorne effect). Few trialists had explicitly used the design to enhance participant recruitment. Most trials (n=41) experienced some crossover from one group to the other (median crossover=8.9%, mean=13.8%, IQR 2.6% to 15%) although this was usually within acceptable limits. CONCLUSION: The most important reason stated by authors for using Zelen's method was to limit bias. Zelen's method, if carefully used, can avoid 'resentful demoralisation' and the Hawthorne effect biasing a trial. Unlike a previous review, we found that crossover was not a problem for most trials.
Authors: David Osrin; Kishwar Azad; Armida Fernandez; Dharma S Manandhar; Charles W Mwansambo; Prasanta Tripathy; Anthony M Costello Journal: Bull World Health Organ Date: 2009-10 Impact factor: 9.408
Authors: Jacob M Kolman; Nelda P Wray; Carol M Ashton; Danielle M Wenner; Anna F Jarman; Baruch A Brody Journal: J Law Med Ethics Date: 2012 Impact factor: 1.718
Authors: Suresh T Chari; Anirban Maitra; Lynn M Matrisian; Eva E Shrader; Bechien U Wu; Avinash Kambadakone; Ying-Qi Zhao; Barbara Kenner; Jo Ann S Rinaudo; Sudhir Srivastava; Ying Huang; Ziding Feng Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2021-12-23 Impact factor: 2.226
Authors: Rana S Hinman; Paul McCrory; Marie Pirotta; Ian Relf; Kay M Crossley; Prasuna Reddy; Andrew Forbes; Anthony Harris; Ben R Metcalf; Mary Kyriakides; Kitty Novy; Kim L Bennell Journal: BMC Complement Altern Med Date: 2012-09-19 Impact factor: 3.659
Authors: Thierry Hanh; Patrick Serog; Jérôme Fauconnier; Pierre Batailler; Florence Mercier; Christian F Roques; Patrick Blin Journal: Evid Based Complement Alternat Med Date: 2012-12-24 Impact factor: 2.629