Envelope use and reporting in randomised controlled trials: A guide for researchers

Laura Clark, A. Dean, A. Mitchell, D. Torgerson
{"title":"Envelope use and reporting in randomised controlled trials: A guide for researchers","authors":"Laura Clark, A. Dean, A. Mitchell, D. Torgerson","doi":"10.1177/2632084320957204","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction To produce robust evidence RCTs need to be rigorously conducted as poorly performed studies introduce bias and can mislead clinicians and policy makers. Poor allocation concealment has the largest single impact on bias in RCTs than other methodological aspects. Envelopes are frequently used as a method of allocation concealment and can be associated with increased risk of bias. This paper aims to review envelope use in RCTs published in 2017–2018 and create a guide as a reference for researchers when planning and publishing RCTs when using envelopes as an allocation concealment method. Methods RCTs that used envelopes as a form of allocation concealment that were published in BMJ, JAMA, NEJM and The Lancet in 2017 and 2018 were identified and methodological data on their envelope use extracted and authors were contacted to ascertain reasons for using envelopes in their research. Results 338 RCTs were identified that were published in 2017 and 2018. 8% (n = 29) of the RCTs published used envelopes as an allocation concealment method. 24.1% (n = 7) of studies reported envelope studies robustly with all required methodological information stated to enable an assessment of quality. Budget was the most frequent reason given for envelope use (41.7%). Discussion Only 24% of published RCTs, that used envelopes, contained robust methodological information to enable the reader to judge whether the randomisation and allocation concealment method was adequate. Conclusion RCTs are not reporting envelope use well. RCTs using envelopes should be designed and reported clearly ensuring all necessary methodological information is included.","PeriodicalId":74683,"journal":{"name":"Research methods in medicine & health sciences","volume":"2 1","pages":"2 - 11"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-10-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/2632084320957204","citationCount":"10","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Research methods in medicine & health sciences","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/2632084320957204","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 10

Abstract

Introduction To produce robust evidence RCTs need to be rigorously conducted as poorly performed studies introduce bias and can mislead clinicians and policy makers. Poor allocation concealment has the largest single impact on bias in RCTs than other methodological aspects. Envelopes are frequently used as a method of allocation concealment and can be associated with increased risk of bias. This paper aims to review envelope use in RCTs published in 2017–2018 and create a guide as a reference for researchers when planning and publishing RCTs when using envelopes as an allocation concealment method. Methods RCTs that used envelopes as a form of allocation concealment that were published in BMJ, JAMA, NEJM and The Lancet in 2017 and 2018 were identified and methodological data on their envelope use extracted and authors were contacted to ascertain reasons for using envelopes in their research. Results 338 RCTs were identified that were published in 2017 and 2018. 8% (n = 29) of the RCTs published used envelopes as an allocation concealment method. 24.1% (n = 7) of studies reported envelope studies robustly with all required methodological information stated to enable an assessment of quality. Budget was the most frequent reason given for envelope use (41.7%). Discussion Only 24% of published RCTs, that used envelopes, contained robust methodological information to enable the reader to judge whether the randomisation and allocation concealment method was adequate. Conclusion RCTs are not reporting envelope use well. RCTs using envelopes should be designed and reported clearly ensuring all necessary methodological information is included.
随机对照试验中信封的使用和报告:研究人员指南
引言为了提供强有力的证据,需要严格进行随机对照试验,因为表现不佳的研究会引入偏见,并可能误导临床医生和政策制定者。与其他方法学方面相比,分配隐蔽性差对随机对照试验中偏见的单一影响最大。信封经常被用作一种分配隐藏的方法,并且可能会增加偏差的风险。本文旨在回顾2017-2018年发表的随机对照试验中信封的使用情况,并创建一份指南,供研究人员在计划和发布使用信封作为分配隐藏方法的随机对照研究时参考。方法对2017年和2018年发表在《BMJ》、《JAMA》、《NEJM》和《柳叶刀》上的使用信封作为分配隐藏形式的随机对照试验进行鉴定,提取其信封使用的方法学数据,并联系作者以确定在研究中使用信封的原因。2017年和2018年公布的338项随机对照试验结果。8%(n = 29)使用信封作为分配隐藏方法。24.1%(n = 7) 的研究报告了强有力的包络研究,并说明了所有必要的方法学信息,以便对质量进行评估。预算是使用信封的最常见原因(41.7%)。在使用信封的已发表随机对照试验中,只有24%包含可靠的方法学信息,使读者能够判断随机化和分配隐藏方法是否足够。结论随机对照试验没有很好地报告包络线的使用情况。应明确设计和报告使用信封的随机对照试验,确保包括所有必要的方法学信息。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信