Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34244982›Full record

ArticlePsychonomic bulletin & review2021

When randomisation is not good enough: Matching groups in intervention studies.

Francesco Sella, Gal Raz, Roi Cohen Kadosh

Erratum issued Registry-linked trialOpen access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Psychonomic bulletin & review, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. It is linked to trial NCT05292807 (Imagery Rescripting and Imaginal Exposure for Anxiety Symptoms), which is not on this map. Cited by 24 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed
6.4field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT05292807 naunknown statusnot on this mapstarted 2022, after this paper: background citation

Imagery Rescripting and Imaginal Exposure for Anxiety Symptoms: Mechanisms and Outcomes in a Large Analog Sample

TypeinterventionalSponsorHebrew University of JerusalemRan2022 to 2025Enrolled460ConditionsSocial Anxiety, Generalized Anxiety, Obsessive-Compulsive Symptom, PanicArmsImaginal exposure for memories, Imaginal exposure for future events, Imagery rescripting for memories, Imagery rescripting for future events
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

24 citing papers in PubMed, 40 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Contrast-induced acute kidney injury in patients with acute necrotizing pancreatitis: Should it impact management of pancreatitis?Indian journal of gastroenterology : official journal of the Indian Society of Gastroenterology · 2023
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Francesco SellaCentre for Mathematical Cognition, Loughborough University, Loughborough, UK. f.sella@lboro.ac.uk.
Gal RazDepartment of Experimental Psychology, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Roi Cohen KadoshDepartment of Experimental Psychology, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
University of Oxford · GBLoughborough University · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Randomised assignment of individuals to treatment and controls groups is often considered the gold standard to draw valid conclusions about the efficacy of an intervention. In practice, randomisation can lead to accidental differences due to chance. Researchers have offered alternatives to reduce such differences, but these methods are not used frequently due to the requirement of advanced statistical methods. Here, we recommend a simple assignment procedure based on variance minimisation (VM), which assigns incoming participants automatically to the condition that minimises differences between groups in relevant measures. As an example of its application in the research context, we simulated an intervention study whereby a researcher used the VM procedure on a covariate to assign participants to a control and intervention group rather than controlling for the covariate at the analysis stage. Among other features of the simulated study, such as effect size and sample size, we manipulated the correlation between the matching covariate and the outcome variable and the presence of imbalance between groups in the covariate. Our results highlighted the advantages of VM over prevalent random assignment procedure in terms of reducing the Type I error rate and providing accurate estimates of the effect of the group on the outcome variable. The VM procedure is valuable in situations whereby the intervention to an individual begins before the recruitment of the entire sample size is completed. We provide an Excel spreadsheet, as well as scripts in R, MATLAB, and Python to ease and foster the implementation of the VM procedure.

Indexed as

COVID-19HumansResearch DesignAllocation methodsClinical trialsImbalanceRandomised controlled trialResearch designVariance minimisation

Identifiers

PMID34244982
PMCPMC8642369
OpenAlexW3177185152

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.