Evidence mapPaperPMID 36476324Full record

SynthesisBMC medical research methodology2022

A systematic review of randomisation method use in RCTs and association of trial design characteristics with method selection.

Cydney L Bruce, Edmund Juszczak, Reuben Ogollah, Christopher Partlett, Alan Montgomery

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC medical research methodology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
field-weighted citation impact
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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Cydney L BruceNottingham Clinical Trials Unit, University of Nottingham, Applied Health Research Building, Nottingham, NG7 2RD, UK. cydney.bruce1@nottingham.ac.uk.
Edmund JuszczakNottingham Clinical Trials Unit, University of Nottingham, Applied Health Research Building, Nottingham, NG7 2RD, UK.
Reuben OgollahNottingham Clinical Trials Unit, University of Nottingham, Applied Health Research Building, Nottingham, NG7 2RD, UK.
Christopher PartlettNottingham Clinical Trials Unit, University of Nottingham, Applied Health Research Building, Nottingham, NG7 2RD, UK.
Alan MontgomeryNottingham Clinical Trials Unit, University of Nottingham, Applied Health Research Building, Nottingham, NG7 2RD, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWhen conducting a randomised controlled trial, there exist many different methods to allocate participants, and a vast array of evidence-based opinions on which methods are the most effective at doing this, leading to differing use of these methods. There is also evidence that study characteristics affect the performance of these methods, but it is unknown whether the study design affects researchers' decision when choosing a method.

methodsWe conducted a review of papers published in five journals in 2019 to assess which randomisation methods are most commonly being used, as well as identifying which aspects of study design, if any, are associated with the choice of randomisation method. Randomisation methodology use was compared with a similar review conducted in 2014.

resultsThe most used randomisation method in this review is block stratification used in 162/330 trials. A combination of simple, randomisation, block randomisation, stratification and minimisation make up 318/330 trials, with only a small number of more novel methods being used, although this number has increased marginally since 2014. More complex methods such as stratification and minimisation seem to be used in larger multicentre studies.

conclusionsWithin this review, most methods used can be classified using a combination of simple, block stratification and minimisation, suggesting that there is not much if any increase in the uptake of newer more novel methods. There seems to be a noticeable polarisation of method use, with an increase in the use of simple methods, but an increase in the complexity of more complex methods, with greater numbers of variables included in the analysis, and a greater number of strata.

Indexed as

Research DesignHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicAllocationMinimisationRandomisationReviewStratification

Identifiers

PMID36476324
PMCPMC9727841

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.