Bias in Treatment Assignment in Controlled Clinical Trials
- 1 December 1983
- journal article
- clinical trial
- Published by Massachusetts Medical Society in New England Journal of Medicine
- Vol. 309 (22), 1358-1361
- https://doi.org/10.1056/nejm198312013092204
Abstract
Controlled clinical trials of the treatment of acute myocardial infarction offer a unique opportunity for the study of the potential influence on outcome of bias in treatment assignment. A group of 145 papers was divided into those in which the randomization process was blinded (57 papers), those in which it may have been unblinded (45 papers), and those in which the controls were selected by a nonrandom process (43 papers). At least one prognostic variable was maldistributed (P<0.05) in 14.0 per cent of the blinded-randomization studies, in 26.7 per cent of the unblinded-randomization studies, and in 58.1 per cent of the nonrandomized studies. Differences in case-fatality rates between treatment and control groups (P<0.05) were found in 8.8 per cent of the blinded-randomization studies, 24.4 per cent of the unblinded-randomization studies, and 58.1 per cent of the nonrandomized studies. These data emphasize the importance of keeping those who recruit patients for clinical trials from suspecting which treatment will be assigned to the patient under consideration. (N Engl J Med 1983; 309:1358–61.)Keywords
This publication has 11 references indexed in Scilit:
- Association of Adrenocorticosteroid Therapy and Peptic-Ulcer DiseaseNew England Journal of Medicine, 1983
- Sensitivity and specificity of clinical trials. Randomized v historical controlsArchives of Internal Medicine, 1983
- Randomized versus historical controls for clinical trialsAmerican Journal Of Medicine, 1982
- Advantages and Drawbacks of the Zelen Design for Randomized Clinical TrialsThe Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, 1980
- Are Randomized Trials Appropriate for Evaluating New Operations?New England Journal of Medicine, 1979
- A New Design for Randomized Clinical TrialsNew England Journal of Medicine, 1979
- A Show of ConfidenceNew England Journal of Medicine, 1978
- The Importance of Beta, the Type II Error and Sample Size in the Design and Interpretation of the Randomized Control TrialNew England Journal of Medicine, 1978
- Allocation of Subjects in Medical ExperimentsNew England Journal of Medicine, 1974
- Non-Randomized Controls in Cancer Clinical TrialsNew England Journal of Medicine, 1974