Potential for technical errors and subverted allocation can be reduced if certain guidelines are followed: examples from a web-based survey

Mechanisms and direction of allocation bias in randomised clinical trials

BACKGROUND

Selective allocation of patients into the compared groups of a randomised trial may cause allocation bias, but the mechanisms behind the bias and its directionality are incompletely understood. We therefore analysed the mechanisms and directionality of allocation bias in randomised clinical trials.

METHODS

Two systematic reviews and a theoretical analysis. We conducted one systematic review of empirical studies of motives/methods for deciphering patient allocation sequences; and another review of methods publications commenting on allocation bias. We theoretically analysed the mechanisms of allocation bias and hypothesised which main factors predicts its direction.

RESULTS

Three empirical studies addressed motives/methods for deciphering allocation sequences. Main motives included ensuring best care for patients and ensuring best outcome for the trial. Main methods included various manipulations with randomisation envelopes. Out of 57 methods publications 11 (19 %) mentioned explicitly that allocation bias can go in either direction. We hypothesised that the direction of allocation bias is mainly decided by the interaction between the patient allocators' motives and treatment preference.

CONCLUSION

Inadequate allocation concealment may exaggerate treatment effects in some trials while underestimate effects in others. Our hypothesis provides a theoretical overview of the main factors responsible for the direction of allocation bias.

Use and reporting of restricted randomization: a review

RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

Restricted randomization, such as blocking or minimization, allows for the creation of balanced groups and even distribution of covariates, but it increases the risk of selection bias and technical error. Various methods are available to reduce these risks but there is limited evidence about their current usage, and there are also indications that reporting of these methods may not be adequate. This review aims to identify how frequently different methods of restriction are being used and to assess the reporting of these methods against established reporting standards.

METHODS

82 reports of randomized controlled trial were reviewed. For each trial, the reported method of randomization was recorded and the reporting of randomization was assessed. Where the method of randomization was not clear from the main paper, protocols and other published materials were also reviewed, and authors were contacted for further information.

RESULTS

For 11% of trials the method of randomization was not reported in either the paper or a published protocol, and in a further 39% of cases the report omitted key details so that the predictability of the method could not be evaluated. In total, 88% of trials appear to have used some form of restricted randomization, and all of those that report the exact methods used either blocking or minimization. 15% of trials reported using blocks of six or less and 4% used minimization with no random element reported, both of which are highly predictable.

CONCLUSION

Our results indicate that the majority of trials use some form of restriction, with many using relatively predictable methods that put them at greater risk of selection bias and technical error. Reporting of randomization methods often falls short of the minimum requirements set out by the CONSORT statement, leaving the reader unable to make an informed judgement about the risk of bias.

Risk of selection bias in randomised trials

BACKGROUND

Selection bias occurs when recruiters selectively enrol patients into the trial based on what the next treatment allocation is likely to be. This can occur even if appropriate allocation concealment is used if recruiters can guess the next treatment assignment with some degree of accuracy. This typically occurs in unblinded trials when restricted randomisation is implemented to force the number of patients in each arm or within each centre to be the same. Several methods to reduce the risk of selection bias have been suggested; however, it is unclear how often these techniques are used in practice.

METHODS

We performed a review of published trials which were not blinded to assess whether they utilised methods for reducing the risk of selection bias. We assessed the following techniques: (a) blinding of recruiters; (b) use of simple randomisation; (c) avoidance of stratification by site when restricted randomisation is used; (d) avoidance of permuted blocks if stratification by site is used; and (e) incorporation of prognostic covariates into the randomisation procedure when restricted randomisation is used. We included parallel group, individually randomised phase III trials published in four general medical journals (BMJ, Journal of the American Medical Association, The Lancet, and New England Journal of Medicine) in 2010.

RESULTS

We identified 152 eligible trials. Most trials (98%) provided no information on whether recruiters were blind to previous treatment allocations. Only 3% of trials used simple randomisation; 63% used some form of restricted randomisation, and 35% did not state the method of randomisation. Overall, 44% of trials were stratified by site of recruitment; 27% were not, and 29% did not report this information. Most trials that did stratify by site of recruitment used permuted blocks (58%), and only 15% reported using random block sizes. Many trials that used restricted randomisation also included prognostic covariates in the randomisation procedure (56%).

CONCLUSIONS

The risk of selection bias could not be ascertained for most trials due to poor reporting. Many trials which did provide details on the randomisation procedure were at risk of selection bias due to a poorly chosen randomisation methods. Techniques to reduce the risk of selection bias should be more widely implemented.