Abstract
Investigators could have double blinded more often. When they did double blind, they reported poorly and rarely evaluated it. Paradoxically, trials that reported exclusions seemed generally of a higher methodological standard than those that had no apparent exclusions. Exclusions from analysis may have been made in some of the trials in which no exclusions were reported. Editors and readers of reports of randomised trials should understand that flawed reporting of exclusions may often provide a misleading impression of the quality of the trial.
Keywords
BlindingMedicineClinical trialSpecialtyObstetrics and gynaecologyRandomizationRandomized controlled trialFamily medicineSurgeryInternal medicinePregnancy
Affiliated Institutions
Related Publications
Empirical Evidence of Bias
<h3>Objective.</h3> —To determine if inadequate approaches to randomized controlled trial design and execution are associated with evidence of bias in estimating treatment effec...
Methodological quality and completeness of reporting in clinical trials conducted in livestock species
Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are the gold standard for evaluating efficacy of treatments under real world conditions and, as such, it is important that they are conducted...
CONSORT 2010 Statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials
The CONSORT statement is used worldwide to improve the reporting of randomised controlled trials. Kenneth Schulz and colleagues describe the latest version, CONSORT 2010, which ...
Assessing the Quality of Randomization From Reports of Controlled Trials Published in Obstetrics and Gynecology Journals
Proper randomization is required to generate unbiased comparison groups in controlled trials, yet the reports in these journals usually provided inadequate or unacceptable infor...
Quality of Reporting of Clinical Trials of Dogs and Cats and Associations with Treatment Effects
Background: To address concerns about the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials, and the potential for biased treatment effects in poorly reported trials, medical...
Publication Info
- Year
- 1996
- Type
- article
- Volume
- 312
- Issue
- 7033
- Pages
- 742-744
- Citations
- 161
- Access
- Closed
External Links
Social Impact
Altmetric
PlumX Metrics
Social media, news, blog, policy document mentions
Citation Metrics
161
OpenAlex
Cite This
K. F Schulz,
David A. Grimes,
Douglas G. Altman
et al.
(1996).
Blinding and exclusions after allocation in randomised controlled trials: survey of published parallel group trials in obstetrics and gynaecology.
BMJ
, 312
(7033)
, 742-744.
https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.312.7033.742
Identifiers
- DOI
- 10.1136/bmj.312.7033.742