Assessing allocation concealment and blinding in randomised controlled trials: why bother?
- 1 January 2001
- journal article
- Published by BMJ in Evidence-Based Nursing
- Vol. 4 (1), 4-6
- https://doi.org/10.1136/ebn.4.1.4
Abstract
As users of RCT results, we must understand the potential for humans to interject bias. By describing assessments of allocation concealment and blinding, abstracts included in Evidence-Based Nursing will help readers to discern those trials that have made superior efforts to minimise bias. Judging the quality of allocation concealment and blinding reflects current empirical research and reflects the commitment of the editors of this journal to apply the principles of evidence-based practice to reporting of study findings.Keywords
This publication has 18 references indexed in Scilit:
- Improving the Quality of Reporting of Randomized Controlled TrialsJAMA, 1996
- Randomised trials, human nature, and reporting guidelinesThe Lancet, 1996
- Empirical evidence of bias in infertility research: overestimation of treatment effect in crossover trials using pregnancy as the outcome measureFertility and Sterility, 1996
- Subverting Randomization in Controlled TrialsJAMA, 1995
- Empirical Evidence of BiasJAMA, 1995
- Reporting of assignment methods in clinical trialsControlled Clinical Trials, 1994
- Assessing the Quality of Randomization From Reports of Controlled Trials Published in Obstetrics and Gynecology JournalsJAMA, 1994
- Randomisation and baseline comparisons in clinical trialsThe Lancet, 1990
- Meta‐analysis of clinical trials as a scientific discipline. I: Control of bias and comparison with large co‐operative trialsStatistics in Medicine, 1987
- An evaluation of the quality of therapeutic studies in perinatal medicineThe Journal of Pediatrics, 1983