Jump to: Page Content, Site Navigation, Site Search,
You are seeing this message because your web browser does not support basic web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.
BMJ 2005;330:600 (12 March), doi:10.1136/bmj.330.7491.600-a
| The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below. |
EDITORIn their interesting follow up of an old trial, Charles et al tell us that this randomised trial was of high quality and that the trial was double blind.1 They also tell us that tablets were supplied in six colours, two of which contained folate in 0.2 mg and 5 mg daily doses. The tablets were kept in numbered drawers and distributed in sequence.
If the tablets had different colours for different treatments the trial wasn't double blind, as any trialists seeing the tablets would know the treatment. If treatments were given sequentially they were not random. Also, there was no allocation concealment, an important indicator of high quality, if treatments were given sequentially, as the treatment for the next subject would be known.
I would not criticise the authors because a trial carried out in the 1960s does not meet current standards, but we should use technical
J Martin Bland, professor of health statistics
University of York, York YO10 5DD mb55@york.ac.uk