Title |
Risk of selection bias in randomized trials: further insight
|
---|---|
Published in |
Trials, October 2016
|
DOI | 10.1186/s13063-016-1597-5 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Vance W. Berger |
Abstract |
The quality of randomization is an under-appreciated facet of trial design. The present piece represents an advance in our collective understanding of how allocation concealment and randomization relate to risk of selection bias in randomized trials, and other measures are also considered. Though the overwhelming majority of the advice given is timely and correct, it is more instructive to focus on the relatively narrow sliver of advice that is incorrect (namely, that trials should not stratify by site, and that unrestricted randomization is a solution to the problem of selection bias), so it is in this context that the comments here must be understood. In no way is this intended to be a rebuttal of the excellent work we have before us. Rather, it is a refinement. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United Kingdom | 4 | 31% |
United States | 2 | 15% |
Ireland | 1 | 8% |
Unknown | 6 | 46% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 11 | 85% |
Scientists | 1 | 8% |
Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 8% |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Unknown | 28 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Other | 3 | 11% |
Student > Master | 3 | 11% |
Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 7% |
Student > Bachelor | 2 | 7% |
Lecturer | 2 | 7% |
Other | 6 | 21% |
Unknown | 10 | 36% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Nursing and Health Professions | 6 | 21% |
Medicine and Dentistry | 5 | 18% |
Chemistry | 2 | 7% |
Mathematics | 1 | 4% |
Immunology and Microbiology | 1 | 4% |
Other | 3 | 11% |
Unknown | 10 | 36% |