Comparison of descriptions of allocation concealment in trial protocols and the published reports: cohort studyBMJ 2005; 330 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.38414.422650.8F (Published 05 May 2005) Cite this as: BMJ 2005;330:1049
Methods of concealment and their adequacy
Strict criteria (predefined)
Loose criteria (post hoc)
Do not fall into category of unclear measures
Trials where treatment allocation was obtained by contacting remote centre
Disclosure of participants’ prognostic data† to central office staff possible before clinician obtained treatment assignment; operationalised as no negation of this possibility. And no precautions reported to avoid central selection bias; operationalised as no information on whether allocation sequence was concealed to central staff until participant is irreversibly registered and no assurance that sequence is strictly sequentially administered‡
Unless explicitly inadequate then trials were classified as having adequate allocation concealment
Envelopes opaque, sealed, and sequentially numbered
³1 of above mentioned criteria not met
Envelopes not described as sealed
Numbered coded vehicles¶:
Vehicles were indistinguishable, sequentially numbered, and sequentially administered. And no implication that investigator allocating them to patients had any knowledge of contents
Vehicles were indistinguishable. And no implication that investigator allocating them to patients had any knowledge of contents
No information on whether vehicles were sequentially administered
Not relevant, since failing one of adequacy criteria above would imply inadequacy**
Measures considered inadequate according to both strict and loose criteria: allocation by alternation, date of birth, case record number, or open table of random numbers**
Other measures of convincing allocation concealment classified as such according to both strict and loose criteria
Studies with information on concealment that did not fall into one of categories defined above or did not provide any information were classified as unclear
*Clinician who enrols participants contacts remote centre and obtains treatment assignment.
†Prognostic data for retrospective stratification and minimisation not included.
‡Minimisation was interpreted as being inherently strictly sequentially administered, as allocation of patient will be uniquely determined by how patients’ baseline data correspond to factors for which minimisation is used.
§Treatment allocated either by sequential administration of envelopes containing treatment assignment or by drawing at random.
¶Numbered coded vehicles (implicitly or explicitly described as containing treatment in random order) when no other means of allocation concealment was implied.
**Two studies, that supposedly used numbered coded vehicles for concealment, explicitly described vehicles or their content as distinguishable. These two studies were classified as having inadequate allocation concealment (see table 2).
In an open trial, clinicians contacted the central randomisation office to obtain the treatment allocation of the next patient. The clinicians provided more information on the patient’s prognosis than necessary for stratification.
We had no guarantee that the central staff person did not use this additional information to alter an unconcealed allocation sequence to "help" the trial to show the desired result; unclear by the strict criteria, adequate by the loose criteria.
Numbered coded vehicles
A study used numbered coded vehicles containing treatment and control treatment in random order, but there was no information on whether the numbering or administration of the vehicles was sequential.
Here the numbers could have been a random sequence of two numbers (for example, 22212111), meaning that if the blinding was broken for just one patient it would be broken for all. Or if there was no demand for sequential delivery of them to the patients, then known or decipherable block sizes or security envelopes could allow for informed adjustment of the sequence of their delivery; unclear by the strict criteria, adequate by the loose criteria.
An open trial used sealed envelopes to allocate patients to each group.
No information on whether the envelopes were transparent if held up against strong light, allowing selection of the next patient to be enrolled to have a prognosis that would make the preferred treatment seem superior; or if the sequence of patients was difficult to alter, then the sequence of envelopes could be changed, since these were not described as prenumbered; unclear by the strict criteria; but adequate by the loose criteria.
- This Week In The BMJ Published: 05 May 2005; BMJ 330 doi:10.1136/bmj.330.7499.0-e
- ResearchEmpirical evidence of bias in treatment effect estimates in controlled trials with different interventions and outcomes: meta-epidemiological studyPublished: 13 March 2008; BMJ 336 doi:10.1136/bmj.39465.451748.AD
- ResearchThe quality of reports of randomised trials in 2000 and 2006: comparative study of articles indexed in PubMedPublished: 24 March 2010; BMJ 340 doi:10.1136/bmj.c723
- Feature Published: 09 March 2009; BMJ 338 doi:10.1136/bmj.b736
- Education And Debate Published: 07 July 2001; BMJ 323 doi:10.1136/bmj.323.7303.42
- ResearchReporting of eligibility criteria of randomised trials: cohort study comparing trial protocols with subsequent articlesPublished: 05 April 2011; BMJ 342 doi:10.1136/bmj.d1828
- Research Methods & Reporting Published: 09 January 2013; BMJ 346 doi:10.1136/bmj.e7586
- Letter Published: 10 January 2008; BMJ 336 doi:10.1136/bmj.39450.701262.3A
- PaperBad reporting does not mean bad methods for randomised trials: observational study of randomised controlled trials performed by the Radiation Therapy Oncology GroupPublished: 01 January 2004; BMJ 328 doi:10.1136/bmj.328.7430.22
- Editorial Published: 01 June 2002; BMJ 324 doi:10.1136/bmj.324.7349.1287
- Research Methods & ReportingCONSORT 2010 Explanation and Elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trialsPublished: 24 March 2010; BMJ 340 doi:10.1136/bmj.c869
- River blindness in East Africa: gains and lossesBMJ January 21, 2020, 368 m155; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.m155
- Association of ideal cardiovascular health at age 50 with incidence of dementia: 25 year follow-up of Whitehall II cohort studyBMJ August 07, 2019, 366 l4414; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.l4414
- Genetic predisposition to increased serum calcium, bone mineral density, and fracture risk in individuals with normal calcium levels: mendelian randomisation studyBMJ August 01, 2019, 366 l4410; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.l4410
- Dietary fats and mortality among patients with type 2 diabetes: analysis in two population based cohort studiesBMJ July 02, 2019, 366 l4009; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.l4009
- Physical activity trajectories and mortality: population based cohort studyBMJ June 26, 2019, 365 l2323; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.l2323
- Quality of Randomized Controlled Trials Reporting in the Treatment of Adult Patients with High-Grade Gliomas
- Catalogue of bias: allocation bias
- SPIRIT 2013 explanation and elaboration: guidance for protocols of clinical trials
- Reporting of eligibility criteria of randomised trials: cohort study comparing trial protocols with subsequent articles
- Quality of Randomized Controlled Trials Reporting in the Treatment of Sarcomas
- The quality of reports of randomised trials in 2000 and 2006: comparative study of articles indexed in PubMed
- CONSORT 2010 Explanation and Elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials
- Quality of randomised trials in COPD
- Industry attack on academics
- Empirical evidence of bias in treatment effect estimates in controlled trials with different interventions and outcomes: meta-epidemiological study
- Delve deeper to find the links
- The Quality of Reporting of Orthopaedic Randomized Trials with Use of a Checklist for Nonpharmacological Therapies
- Collaborative care for depression in primary care: Making sense of a complex intervention: systematic review and meta-regression
- Systematic Evaluation of the Quality of Randomized Controlled Trials in Diabetes
- Quality of Reporting of Randomized, Controlled Trials in Cerebral Palsy