Cited by 176Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsStatistical Methods in Clinical TrialsAcademic Publishing and Open Access

Adequacy and reporting of allocation concealment: review of recent trials published in four general medical journals

Open access
Hewitt, Catherine, Hahn, Seokyung, Torgerson, David J, Watson, Judith, Bland, J Martin·2005·BMJ

Abstract

guidelines.This carelessness sets a poor example for authors.

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.38413.576713.ae

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The method of randomization was described in only 25% of published RCTs.

    “For example, the method of randomization was described in only 25 % of published RCTs [10, 15, 22]”

    From Impact of an online writing aid tool for writing a randomized trial report: the COBWEB (Consort-based WEB tool) randomized controlled trial (2015) · cites this paper as [22]

    The Methods and results section reports that the allocation-concealment method was unclear in 61 of 234 trials (26%). The Comments section likewise says that about a quarter failed to describe how allocation was concealed—not that only a quarter described the method of randomization. The paper distinguishes allocation concealment from the randomization process and does not report the claimed 25% figure for randomization methods. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Poor randomisation methods with no concealment can lead to exaggerated treatment effects.

    “Poor randomisation methods with no concealment can lead to exaggerated treatment effects,79 80 which can then lead to further problems with overexaggerated systematic reviews.81”

    From Novel ACT-based eHealth psychoeducational intervention for students with mental distress: A study protocol for a mixed-methodology pilot trial (2019) · cites this paper as [80]

    The Methods and results section reports that trials with inadequate allocation concealment tended to yield statistically significant results more often than trials with adequate concealment; the Comments section reiterates that association. The paper compares P values, not the size of treatment effects, so it does not establish that poor concealment exaggerates treatment effects. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hewitt, C., Hahn, S., Torgerson, D. J., Watson, J., & Bland, J. M.
Affiliations
  • University of York (GB)
  • Seoul National University Hospital (KR)
Corresponding author
Hewitt, Catherine
Venue
BMJ
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2005-03-10
Volume
330
Issue
7499
Pages
1057-1058
ISSN
  • 0007-1447 (ISSN-L)
  • 0959-8138
  • 1468-5833
OpenAlex
W2074842559
Cited by
176
References
5
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 22 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 14 · 2014: 10 · 2013: 21 · 2012: 11
FWCI
12.63
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • BMJ (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
  • DigitalGeorgetown (Georgetown University Library) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Academic Publishing and Open Access
Keywords
allocation concealment, randomization, trial reporting, reporting guidelines, general medical journals
MeSH terms
Periodicals as Topic, Random Allocation, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic

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