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
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.advisorGuyatt, Gordonen_US
dc.contributor.advisorThabane, Lehanaen_US
dc.contributor.advisorYou, Johnen_US
dc.contributor.authorMulla, Sohail M.en_US
dc.date.accessioned2014-06-18T17:03:47Z-
dc.date.available2014-06-18T17:03:47Z-
dc.date.created2013-09-05en_US
dc.date.issued2013-10en_US
dc.identifier.otheropendissertations/8213en_US
dc.identifier.other9210en_US
dc.identifier.other4554847en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11375/13394-
dc.description.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>en_US
dc.subjectclinical trials methodologyen_US
dc.subjectsurvey researchen_US
dc.subjectallocation concealmenten_US
dc.subjectMedicine and Health Sciencesen_US
dc.subjectMedicine and Health Sciencesen_US
dc.titleViews on allocation concealment methods in randomized clinical trials: a survey of clinical trialistsen_US
dc.typethesisen_US
dc.contributor.departmentHealth Research Methodologyen_US
dc.description.degreeMaster of Science (MSc)en_US
Appears in Collections:Open Access Dissertations and Theses

Files in This Item:
File SizeFormat 
fulltext.pdf
Open Access
380.97 kBAdobe PDFView/Open
Show simple 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