...
首页> 外文期刊>Trials >Subversion of allocation concealment in a randomised controlled trial: a historical case study
【24h】

Subversion of allocation concealment in a randomised controlled trial: a historical case study

机译:一项随机对照试验中分配隐藏的颠覆:一个历史案例研究

获取原文
           

摘要

Background If the randomisation process within a trial is subverted, this can lead to selection bias that may invalidate the trial’s result. To avoid this problem, it is recommended that some form of concealment should be put into place. Despite ongoing anecdotal concerns about their susceptibility to subversion, a surprising number of trials (over 10%) still use sealed opaque envelopes as the randomisation method of choice. This is likely due in part to the paucity of empirical data quantifying the potential effects of subversion. In this study we report a historical before and after study that compares the use of the sealed envelope method with a more secure centralised telephone allocation approach in order to provide such empirical evidence of the effects of subversion. Methods This was an opportunistic before and after study set within a multi-centre surgical trial, which involved 654 patients from 28 clinicians from 23 centres in the UK and Ireland. Two methods of randomly allocating subjects to alternative treatments were adopted: (a) a sealed envelope system administered locally, and (b) a centralised telephone system administered by the trial co-ordination centre. Key prognostic variables were compared between randomisation methods: (a) age at trial entry, a key prognostic factor in the study, and (b) the order in which ‘randomisation envelopes’ were matched to subjects. Results The median age of patients allocated to the experimental group with the sealed envelope system, was significantly lower both overall (59 vs 63?years, p Conclusions Due to inadequate allocation concealment with the sealed envelope system, the randomisation process was corrupted for patients recruited from three clinicians. Centralised randomisation ensures that treatment allocation is not only secure but seen to be secure. Where this proves to be impossible, allocation should at least be performed by an independent third party. Unless it is an absolute requirement, the use of sealed envelopes should be discontinued forthwith.
机译:背景信息如果颠覆了试验中的随机过程,则可能导致选择偏见,从而使试验结果无效。为避免此问题,建议应采用某种形式的隐藏方法。尽管人们对其传承的敏感性一直存在传闻,但令人惊讶的是,仍有大量试验(超过10%)使用密封的不透明包膜作为随机选择的方法。这可能部分是由于缺乏量化颠覆潜在影响的经验数据。在本研究中,我们报告了一个历史研究前后的历史,该研究将密封信封方法与更安全的集中式电话分配方法的使用进行了比较,以提供这种颠覆效应的经验证据。方法这是一项在多中心外科试验中进行研究的前后机会,涉及来自英国和爱尔兰23个中心的28位临床医生的654位患者。采用了两种将受试者随机分配给其他治疗方法的方法:(a)局部管理的密封信封系统,和(b)由试验协调中心管理的集中式电话系统。在随机方法之间比较了关键的预后变量:(a)进入试验的年龄,研究中的关键预后因素,以及(b)“随机化信封”与受试者匹配的顺序。结果采用密封包膜系统分配到实验组的患者中位年龄,总体上均较低(59岁vs 63岁,p)结论由于密封包膜系统分配隐蔽性不足,招募患者的随机化过程被破坏了由三名临床医生提供的集中式随机分配可确保不仅安全分配治疗,而且被认为是安全的;如果证明不可能,则分配治疗至少应由独立的第三方进行;除非绝对要求,否则应使用密封信封应立即停产。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号