评估随机对照试验中随机化方法的质量

IF 2 4区 医学 Q3 HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES
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 ,&nbsp;Daniel Wang ,&nbsp;Matthew McGillivray ,&nbsp;Shadi Baajour ,&nbsp;Ali S Raja ,&nbsp;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 ,&nbsp;Daniel Wang ,&nbsp;Matthew McGillivray ,&nbsp;Shadi Baajour ,&nbsp;Ali S Raja ,&nbsp;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}
引用次数: 0

摘要

重要性随机化过程被认为是随机对照试验(rct)最重要的组成部分之一,也是rct的核心优势。适当的随机化应该消除大多数人口偏差,其中一些人口或人口成员比其他人更有可能被选中或不被选中,从而产生类似的比较组来评估治疗。[4,5]目的评价随机对照试验中用于将受试者分配到对照组的随机化方法描述的方法学质量。对clinicaltrials .gov中报道的3期临床试验进行横断面回顾,从所有可获得的记录(n = 345,278)开始,我们只纳入了美国国家医学图书馆数据库中3期随机对照试验的研究。截至2020年6月1日,共确定1528个协议。排除标准不包括方案列表或非随机研究,其中517项被排除。由于随机化方法不明确,693篇文献被排除。纳入标准包括基于Berger和antsygina的“临床试验中随机化方法综述”的随机化方法。1每个研究方案被提取出来,以确定由三位独立审稿人描述的随机化方法。随机临床试验研究方案中描述的随机化方法分类。研究结果:只有20.8%的研究方案描述了随机分配参与者的方法。在这个定义协议的子集中,置换块设计(Permuted-Block Design)被使用得最多(85.9%)。超过四分之三的研究方案(77.7%)提供了关于随机化方法类型的不完整描述(即无方案,无/a,不清楚)。结论和相关性:在对照试验中需要适当的随机化来产生无偏的对照组,然而目前在Clinicaltrials.gov上的大多数rct研究方案提供了不充分或不可接受的关于随机化方法的信息。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
37
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
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信