Skip navigation
  • Home
  • Browse
    • Communities
      & Collections
    • Browse Items by:
    • Publication Date
    • Author
    • Title
    • Subject
    • Department
  • Sign on to:
    • My MacSphere
    • Receive email
      updates
    • Edit Profile


McMaster University Home Page
  1. MacSphere
  2. Open Access Dissertations and Theses Community
  3. Open Access Dissertations and Theses
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/11375/13394
Title: Views on allocation concealment methods in randomized clinical trials: a survey of clinical trialists
Authors: Mulla, Sohail M.
Advisor: Guyatt, Gordon
Thabane, Lehana
You, John
Department: Health Research Methodology
Keywords: clinical trials methodology;survey research;allocation concealment;Medicine and Health Sciences;Medicine and Health Sciences
Publication Date: Oct-2013
Abstract: <p>Allocation concealment is the process of implementing the randomization sequence in a manner that prevents foreknowledge of upcoming group assignments. It protects against preferential enrolment of study participants, which could disrupt the prognostic balance that randomization aims to create in the first place. Envelopes are one method perceived by clinical trial authorities to adequately conceal allocation, despite evidence suggesting otherwise. We do not believe that envelopes are adequate, and we wanted to know the extent to which our sentiment resonated within the clinical trials community. We administered an internet-based survey to a random sample (n=1,926) of corresponding authors of recently published randomized clinical trials (RCTs). We sent non-responders up to two e-mail reminders starting from two weeks after the original invitation. We received 490 complete surveys (25.4% response rate) after collecting data for seven weeks. Most participants (61%) preferred central randomization to conceal allocation, yet a majority (64%) also accepted that envelopes are adequate. After they were shown examples that suggested envelopes’ vulnerability, 11% of participants shifted their preference away from envelopes and 38% of participants became less accepting of envelopes. Compared to their initial ratings and after they were shown the examples, significantly more participants (69%) preferred central randomization (p</p>
URI: http://hdl.handle.net/11375/13394
Identifier: opendissertations/8213
9210
4554847
Appears in Collections:Open Access Dissertations and Theses

Files in This Item:
File SizeFormat 
fulltext.pdf
Open Access
380.97 kBAdobe PDFView/Open
Show full item record Statistics


Items in MacSphere are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.

Sherman Centre for Digital Scholarship     McMaster University Libraries
©2022 McMaster University, 1280 Main Street West, Hamilton, Ontario L8S 4L8 | 905-525-9140 | Contact Us | Terms of Use & Privacy Policy | Feedback

Report Accessibility Issue