Research
Print page Print page
Switch language
The Capital Region of Denmark - a part of Copenhagen University Hospital
Published

Mechanisms and direction of allocation bias in randomised clinical trials

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

  1. DEBATE-statistical analysis plans for observational studies

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

  2. The "RCT augmentation": a novel simulation method to add patient heterogeneity into phase III trials

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

  3. Trial Sequential Analysis in systematic reviews with meta-analysis

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

  1. Hand cleaning with ash for reducing the spread of viral and bacterial infections: a rapid review

    Research output: Contribution to journalReviewResearchpeer-review

  2. Systematic review finds that appraisal tools for medical research studies address conflicts of interest superficially

    Research output: Contribution to journalReviewResearchpeer-review

  3. Impact of blinding on estimated treatment effects in randomised clinical trials: meta-epidemiological study

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

  4. European Society Paediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition Guidelines for Diagnosing Coeliac Disease 2020

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

  5. Sertraline in primary care: comments on the PANDA trial

    Research output: Contribution to journalComment/debateResearch

View graph of relations

BACKGROUND: Selective allocation of patients into the compared groups of a randomised trial may cause allocation bias, but the mechanisms behind the bias and its directionality are incompletely understood. We therefore analysed the mechanisms and directionality of allocation bias in randomised clinical trials.

METHODS: Two systematic reviews and a theoretical analysis. We conducted one systematic review of empirical studies of motives/methods for deciphering patient allocation sequences; and another review of methods publications commenting on allocation bias. We theoretically analysed the mechanisms of allocation bias and hypothesised which main factors predicts its direction.

RESULTS: Three empirical studies addressed motives/methods for deciphering allocation sequences. Main motives included ensuring best care for patients and ensuring best outcome for the trial. Main methods included various manipulations with randomisation envelopes. Out of 57 methods publications 11 (19 %) mentioned explicitly that allocation bias can go in either direction. We hypothesised that the direction of allocation bias is mainly decided by the interaction between the patient allocators' motives and treatment preference.

CONCLUSION: Inadequate allocation concealment may exaggerate treatment effects in some trials while underestimate effects in others. Our hypothesis provides a theoretical overview of the main factors responsible for the direction of allocation bias.

Original languageEnglish
JournalBMC Medical Research Methodology
Volume16
Issue number1
Pages (from-to)133
ISSN1471-2288
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 7 Oct 2016

ID: 49241377