BMJ  2005;330:1049 (7 May), doi:10.1136/bmj.38414.422650.8F (published 7 April 2005)

Paper

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

¹ Nordic Cochrane Centre, H:S Rigshospitalet, DK-2100 Copenhagen, Denmark, ² Department of Medicine, University of Toronto, ³ Cancer Research UK Medical Statistics Group, Centre for Statistics in Medicine, Oxford OX3 7LF

Objectives To compare how allocation concealment is described in publications of randomised clinical trials and corresponding protocols, and to estimate how often trial publications with unclear allocation concealment have adequate concealment according to the protocol.

Design Cohort study of 102 sets of trial protocols and corresponding publications.

Setting Protocols of randomised trials approved by the scientific and ethical committees for Copenhagen and Frederiksberg, 1994 and 1995.

Main outcome measures Frequency of adequate, unclear, and inadequate allocation concealment and sequence generation in trial publications compared with protocols, and the proportion of protocols where methods were reported to be adequate but descriptions were unclear in the trial publications.

Results 96 of the 102 trials had unclear allocation concealment according to the trial publication. According to the protocols, 15 of these 96 trials had adequate allocation concealment (16%, 95% confidence interval 9% to 24%), 80 had unclear concealment (83%, 74% to 90%), and one had inadequate concealment. When retrospectively defined loose criteria for concealment were applied, 83 of the 102 trial publications had unclear concealment. According to their protocol, 33 of these 83 trials had adequate allocation concealment (40%, 29% to 51%), 49 had unclear concealment (59%, 48% to 70%), and one had inadequate concealment.

Conclusions Most randomised clinical trials have unclear allocation concealment on the basis of the trial publication alone. Most of these trials also have unclear allocation concealment according to their protocol.

CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?

Relevant Articles

Empirical evidence of bias in treatment effect estimates in controlled trials with different interventions and outcomes: meta-epidemiological study

Lesley Wood, Matthias Egger, Lise Lotte Gluud, Kenneth F Schulz, Peter Jüni, Douglas G Altman, Christian Gluud, Richard M Martin, Anthony J G Wood, and Jonathan A C Sterne
BMJ 2008 336: 601-605. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Delve deeper to find the links

John H Noble, Jr
BMJ 2008 336: 59. [Extract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Allocation concealment is neglected in papers and protocols
BMJ 2005 330: 0. [Full Text]

Bad reporting does not mean bad methods for randomised trials: observational study of randomised controlled trials performed by the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group

Heloisa P Soares, Stephanie Daniels, Ambuj Kumar, Mike Clarke, Charles Scott, Suzanne Swann, and Benjamin Djulbegovic
BMJ 2004 328: 22-24. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Are selective COX 2 inhibitors superior to traditional non steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs?

Peter Jüni, Anne WS Rutjes, and Paul A Dieppe
BMJ 2002 324: 1287-1288. [Extract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Systematic reviews in health care: Assessing the quality of controlled clinical trials

Peter Jüni, Douglas G Altman, and Matthias Egger
BMJ 2001 323: 42-46. [Extract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This article has been cited by other articles:

• Wykes, T., Steel, C., Everitt, B., Tarrier, N. (2008). Cognitive Behavior Therapy for Schizophrenia: Effect Sizes, Clinical Models, and Methodological Rigor. Schizophr Bull 34: 523-537 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Wood, L., Egger, M., Gluud, L. L., Schulz, K. F, Juni, P., Altman, D. G, Gluud, C., Martin, R. M, Wood, A. J G, Sterne, J. A C (2008). Empirical evidence of bias in treatment effect estimates in controlled trials with different interventions and outcomes: meta-epidemiological study. BMJ 336: 601-605 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Noble, J. H Jr (2008). Delve deeper to find the links. BMJ 336: 59-59 [Full text]  
• Reddy, M., Gill, S. S., Kalkar, S. R., Wu, W., Anderson, P. J., Rochon, P. A. (2007). Oral Drug Therapy for Multiple Neglected Tropical Diseases: A Systematic Review. JAMA 298: 1911-1924 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Chan, S., Bhandari, M. (2007). The Quality of Reporting of Orthopaedic Randomized Trials with Use of a Checklist for Nonpharmacological Therapies. JBJS 89: 1970-1978 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Pildal, J, Hrobjartsson, A, Jorgensen, K., Hilden, J, Altman, D., Gotzsche, P. (2007). Impact of allocation concealment on conclusions drawn from meta-analyses of randomized trials. Int J Epidemiol 36: 847-857 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Moher, D. (2007). Reporting research results: a moral obligation for all researchers/Presenter les resultants de recherche : une obligation morale pour tous les chercheurs. Canadian J. Anesthesia 54: 331-335 [Full text]  
• Turgeon, A. F., Hutton, B., Fergusson, D. A., McIntyre, L., Tinmouth, A. A., Cameron, D. W., Hebert, P. C. (2007). Meta-analysis: Intravenous Immunoglobulin in Critically Ill Adult Patients with Sepsis. ANN INTERN MED 146: 193-203 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Bower, P., Gilbody, S., Richards, D., Fletcher, J., Sutton, A. (2006). Collaborative care for depression in primary care: Making sense of a complex intervention: systematic review and meta-regression. Br. J. Psychiatry 189: 484-493 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Montori, V. M., Wang, Y. G., Alonso-Coello, P., Bhagra, S. (2006). Systematic Evaluation of the Quality of Randomized Controlled Trials in Diabetes. Diabetes Care 29: 1833-1838 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Anttila, H., Malmivaara, A., Kunz, R., Autti-Ramo, I., Makela, M. (2006). Quality of reporting of randomized, controlled trials in cerebral palsy.. Pediatrics 117: 2222-2230 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Gluud, L. L. (2006). Bias in Clinical Intervention Research. Am J Epidemiol 163: 493-501 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Le Henanff, A., Giraudeau, B., Baron, G., Ravaud, P. (2006). Quality of Reporting of Noninferiority and Equivalence Randomized Trials. JAMA 295: 1147-1151 [Abstract] [Full text]