Letter

Why transition from alternation to randomisation in clinical trials was made

BMJ 1999; 319 doi: 10.1136/bmj.319.7221.1372 (Published 20 November 1999)
Cite this as: BMJ 1999;319:1372

Access to the full text of this article requires a subscription or payment. Please log in or subscribe below.

  1. Iain Chalmers, director (ichalmers@cochrane.co.uk)
  1. Cochrane Centre, Oxford OX2 7LG

    EDITOR—It is time to put the record straight about ways of controlling selection bias when generating comparison groups in clinical trials. D'Arcy Hart has done history a great service by noting that Bradford Hill's motivation for replacing alternation with randomisation was “to better conceal the allocation schedule.”1 This is what Guy Scadding (who, with D'Arcy Hart, is the other surviving member of the team who designed the streptomycin trial) told Mike Clarke and me when we visited him on 10 June 1999, and what Bradford Hill told William Silverman and me when we visited him on 3 April 1982.

    Bradford Hill's motivation for concentrating on the concealment of …

    Access to the full text of this article requires a subscription or payment

    Subscribe

    Article access

    Article access for 1 day

    Purchase this article for £20 $30 €32*

    The PDF version can be downloaded as your personal record

    * Prices do not include VAT

    Rapid responses

    THIS WEEK'S POLL

    BMJ most popular