Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 172

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Randomisation.

Open access
Altman, D G·1991·BMJ

Abstract

and their emotional needs are analogous to women with pseudocyesis -there is one reported case of both pseudocyesis and baby stealing."'Yet though women with pseudocyesis might receive psychotherapy or treatment for concurrent depression," non-psychotic women who abduct infants are as likely to be given a punitive sentence.Even when women receive treatment this does not mean that their behaviour has been understood or that their treatment has been rationally based.The relation between treatment and outcome, and even what the treatment should be, is unknown.Furthermore, women who commit unusual offences may be recommended for psychiatric care without much exploration of their motives and therapeutic needs, a practice that has been called "playing the labels" to provide a "ticket to the psychiatrist."'2A humane recommendation by the courts is not the same as understanding an offence.If better awareness of the causes of baby stealing and the most suitable legal outcomes are to be achieved a precise study of outcome, the impact of hospital treatment, and the prediction of repetition and persistent vulnerability is necessary, extending previous work beyond the point of the court's initial recommendation.There is also a more delicate, perhaps controversial, use for such information-to help detect the offender'3 and to reassure the parents of the stolen child, who are the real victims of the offence.They can take comfort from the knowledge that most abducted babies are found quickly as there is often no attempt to conceal them.And, although there are dramatic exceptions,'4 the babies are almost always well cared for by the women who are desperate and disturbed enough to steal them.4

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1136/bmj.302.6791.1481

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 9

  1. Pocock SJ. Clinical trials: a pracuical approach. Chichester: John Wiley, 1983.
  2. Altman DG. A fair trial? BMJ 1984;289:336-7. · doi:10.1136/bmj.289.6441.336
  3. Smithells RW, Sheppard S. Schorah CJ, et al. Possible prevention of neural-tube defccts by periconiceptional vitamin supplementation. Lancet 1980;i:339-40. · DOI · Paper page
  4. Evans SJW. Good surveys guide. BRMfj 1991;302:302-3.
  5. Altman DG, Dore CJ. Randomisation and baselinc comparisons in clinical trials. Lancet 1990;335: 149-53. · DOI · Paper page
  6. Gotzsche PC. Methodology and overt and hidden bias in reports of 196 double-blind trials of nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs in rheumatoid arthritis. Controlled Clin Trials 1989;10:31-56. · DOI · Paper page
  7. Beecham L. New deal on juniors hours. BMJ 1991;302:1483.
  8. Ford J, Simpson P. Juniors' hoursofwork survey: additional findings. BM3 1991;302:1 18.
  9. University of London. Inappropriate duties for preregistration house officers. BMJ 1991;302:tfacing

Cited by

See all 172

Metadata

Authors
Altman, D. G.
Venue
BMJ
Publisher
BMJ
Published
1991-06-22
Volume
302
Issue
6791
Pages
1481-1482
ISSN
  • 0007-1447 (ISSN-L)
  • 0959-8138
  • 1468-5833
OpenAlex
W4248949215
Cited by
172
References
0
FWCI
29.67
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Randomisation. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/bmj.302.6791.1481
The paper
Altman, D. G. (1991). Randomisation. BMJ. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.302.6791.1481

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.