Deborah Lai , Daniel Wang , Matthew McGillivray , Shadi Baajour , Ali S Raja , Shuhan He
{"title":"评估随机对照试验中随机化方法的质量","authors":"Deborah Lai , Daniel Wang , Matthew McGillivray , Shadi Baajour , Ali S Raja , Shuhan He","doi":"10.1016/j.hjdsi.2021.100570","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Importance</h3><p><span>The randomization process is considered among the most important components of a randomized control trial<span> (RCTs) and a core advantage of RCTs. Proper randomization should eliminate most population biases, in which some populations, or members of a population are more likely to be selected or not selected than others, such that similar comparison groups are produced to evaluate treatments.</span></span><span><sup>4</sup></span><sup>,</sup><span><sup>5</sup></span></p></div><div><h3>Objective</h3><p>To assess the methodologic quality of the descriptions of randomization methods used to allocate participants to comparison groups in randomized controlled trials.</p></div><div><h3>Evidence review</h3><p><span>A cross-sectional review of phase 3 clinical trials reported in </span><span>Clinicaltrials.gov</span><svg><path></path></svg>.</p><p><span>Beginning at all records available (n = 345,278) we included studies only listed for stage 3 RCTs in the U.S. National Library of Medicine database. A total of 1528 protocols were identified as of June 1, 2020. Exclusion criteria involved no protocol listed or non-randomized studies, of which 517 were excluded. There were 693 text articles excluded due to unclear methods of randomization. Inclusion criteria involved randomization methods based on “A review of randomization methods in clinical trials” by Berger and Antsygina.</span><span>1</span></p><p>Each study protocol was extracted to identify the randomization methods described by three independent reviewers. Classification of randomization methods described in the study protocols for randomized clinical trials.</p></div><div><h3>Findings</h3><p>Only 20.8 % of the study protocols described a method for randomly assigning participants to groups. Of this subset that defined protocols, the Permuted-Block Design was used most often (85.9 %). More than three quarters of all study protocols (77.7 %) provided incomplete descriptions about the type of randomization method (i.e. no protocol, n/a, unclear).</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>and Relevance:Proper randomization is required to generate unbiased comparison groups in controlled trials, yet the majority of study protocols for RCTs currently in <span>Clinicaltrials.gov</span><svg><path></path></svg> provide inadequate or unacceptable information regarding their randomization methods.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":29963,"journal":{"name":"Healthcare-The Journal of Delivery Science and Innovation","volume":"9 4","pages":"Article 100570"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.hjdsi.2021.100570","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Assessing the quality of randomization methods in randomized control trials\",\"authors\":\"Deborah Lai , Daniel Wang , Matthew McGillivray , Shadi Baajour , Ali S Raja , Shuhan He\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.hjdsi.2021.100570\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Importance</h3><p><span>The randomization process is considered among the most important components of a randomized control trial<span> (RCTs) and a core advantage of RCTs. Proper randomization should eliminate most population biases, in which some populations, or members of a population are more likely to be selected or not selected than others, such that similar comparison groups are produced to evaluate treatments.</span></span><span><sup>4</sup></span><sup>,</sup><span><sup>5</sup></span></p></div><div><h3>Objective</h3><p>To assess the methodologic quality of the descriptions of randomization methods used to allocate participants to comparison groups in randomized controlled trials.</p></div><div><h3>Evidence review</h3><p><span>A cross-sectional review of phase 3 clinical trials reported in </span><span>Clinicaltrials.gov</span><svg><path></path></svg>.</p><p><span>Beginning at all records available (n = 345,278) we included studies only listed for stage 3 RCTs in the U.S. National Library of Medicine database. A total of 1528 protocols were identified as of June 1, 2020. Exclusion criteria involved no protocol listed or non-randomized studies, of which 517 were excluded. There were 693 text articles excluded due to unclear methods of randomization. Inclusion criteria involved randomization methods based on “A review of randomization methods in clinical trials” by Berger and Antsygina.</span><span>1</span></p><p>Each study protocol was extracted to identify the randomization methods described by three independent reviewers. Classification of randomization methods described in the study protocols for randomized clinical trials.</p></div><div><h3>Findings</h3><p>Only 20.8 % of the study protocols described a method for randomly assigning participants to groups. Of this subset that defined protocols, the Permuted-Block Design was used most often (85.9 %). More than three quarters of all study protocols (77.7 %) provided incomplete descriptions about the type of randomization method (i.e. no protocol, n/a, unclear).</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>and Relevance:Proper randomization is required to generate unbiased comparison groups in controlled trials, yet the majority of study protocols for RCTs currently in <span>Clinicaltrials.gov</span><svg><path></path></svg> provide inadequate or unacceptable information regarding their randomization methods.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":29963,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Healthcare-The Journal of Delivery Science and Innovation\",\"volume\":\"9 4\",\"pages\":\"Article 100570\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.hjdsi.2021.100570\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Healthcare-The Journal of Delivery Science and Innovation\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2213076421000531\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Healthcare-The Journal of Delivery Science and Innovation","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2213076421000531","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
Assessing the quality of randomization methods in randomized control trials
Importance
The randomization process is considered among the most important components of a randomized control trial (RCTs) and a core advantage of RCTs. Proper randomization should eliminate most population biases, in which some populations, or members of a population are more likely to be selected or not selected than others, such that similar comparison groups are produced to evaluate treatments.4,5
Objective
To assess the methodologic quality of the descriptions of randomization methods used to allocate participants to comparison groups in randomized controlled trials.
Evidence review
A cross-sectional review of phase 3 clinical trials reported in Clinicaltrials.gov.
Beginning at all records available (n = 345,278) we included studies only listed for stage 3 RCTs in the U.S. National Library of Medicine database. A total of 1528 protocols were identified as of June 1, 2020. Exclusion criteria involved no protocol listed or non-randomized studies, of which 517 were excluded. There were 693 text articles excluded due to unclear methods of randomization. Inclusion criteria involved randomization methods based on “A review of randomization methods in clinical trials” by Berger and Antsygina.1
Each study protocol was extracted to identify the randomization methods described by three independent reviewers. Classification of randomization methods described in the study protocols for randomized clinical trials.
Findings
Only 20.8 % of the study protocols described a method for randomly assigning participants to groups. Of this subset that defined protocols, the Permuted-Block Design was used most often (85.9 %). More than three quarters of all study protocols (77.7 %) provided incomplete descriptions about the type of randomization method (i.e. no protocol, n/a, unclear).
Conclusions
and Relevance:Proper randomization is required to generate unbiased comparison groups in controlled trials, yet the majority of study protocols for RCTs currently in Clinicaltrials.gov provide inadequate or unacceptable information regarding their randomization methods.
期刊介绍:
HealthCare: The Journal of Delivery Science and Innovation is a quarterly journal. The journal promotes cutting edge research on innovation in healthcare delivery, including improvements in systems, processes, management, and applied information technology.
The journal welcomes submissions of original research articles, case studies capturing "policy to practice" or "implementation of best practices", commentaries, and critical reviews of relevant novel programs and products. The scope of the journal includes topics directly related to delivering healthcare, such as:
● Care redesign
● Applied health IT
● Payment innovation
● Managerial innovation
● Quality improvement (QI) research
● New training and education models
● Comparative delivery innovation