↓ Skip to main content

Mechanisms and direction of allocation bias in randomised clinical trials

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Research Methodology, October 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (71st percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (72nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
10 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
75 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Mechanisms and direction of allocation bias in randomised clinical trials
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology, October 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12874-016-0235-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Asger Paludan-Müller, David Ruben Teindl Laursen, Asbjørn Hróbjartsson

Abstract

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. 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. 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. 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.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 75 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 1 1%
Unknown 74 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 14 19%
Student > Master 12 16%
Student > Postgraduate 8 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 7%
Other 4 5%
Other 15 20%
Unknown 17 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 22 29%
Nursing and Health Professions 18 24%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 3%
Psychology 2 3%
Other 10 13%
Unknown 18 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 11 October 2016.
All research outputs
#6,469,240
of 24,529,782 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#970
of 2,176 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#93,163
of 326,006 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#13
of 44 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,529,782 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,176 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 326,006 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 44 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its contemporaries.