Allocation concealment in randomised trials: defending against deciphering

被引:636
作者
Schulz, KF [1 ]
Grimes, DA [1 ]
机构
[1] Family Hlth Int, Res Triangle Pk, NC 27709 USA
关键词
D O I
10.1016/S0140-6736(02)07750-4
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
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.
引用
收藏
页码:614 / 618
页数:5
相关论文
共 35 条
[1]   How well are randomized controlled trials reported in the dermatology literature? [J].
Adetugbo, K ;
Williams, H .
ARCHIVES OF DERMATOLOGY, 2000, 136 (03) :381-385
[2]   The revised CONSORT statement for reporting randomized trials: Explanation and elaboration [J].
Altman, DG ;
Schulz, KF ;
Moher, D ;
Egger, M ;
Davidoff, F ;
Elbourne, D ;
Gotzsche, PC ;
Lang, T .
ANNALS OF INTERNAL MEDICINE, 2001, 134 (08) :663-694
[3]   RANDOMIZATION AND BASE-LINE COMPARISONS IN CLINICAL-TRIALS [J].
ALTMAN, DG ;
DORE, CJ .
LANCET, 1990, 335 (8682) :149-153
[4]  
ALTMAN DG, 1985, STATISTICIAN, V34, P125
[5]  
[Anonymous], 2001, LANCET, V357, P89, DOI DOI 10.1016/S0140-6736(00)03539-X
[6]  
[Anonymous], 1966, DESIGN EXPT
[7]  
Bellomo R, 2000, LANCET, V356, P2139
[8]   Sputum eosinophilia and short-term response to prednisolone in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a randomised controlled trial [J].
Brightling, CE ;
Monteiro, W ;
Ward, R ;
Parker, D ;
Morgan, MDL ;
Wardlaw, AJ ;
Pavord, ID .
LANCET, 2000, 356 (9240) :1480-1485
[9]  
BULPITT CJ, 1983, RANDOMISED CONTROLLE
[10]   Comparing like with like: some historical milestones in the evolution of methods to create unbiased comparison groups in therapeutic experiments [J].
Chalmers, I .
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2001, 30 (05) :1156-1164