Cited by 209Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsStatistical Methods in Clinical TrialsPharmaceutical industry and healthcare

Comparison of descriptions of allocation concealment in trial protocols and the published reports: cohort study

Open access
Pildal, Julie, Chan, An-Wen, Hróbjartsson, Asbjørn, Forfang, Elisabeth, Altman, Douglas G, Gøtzsche, Peter C·2005·BMJ

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To compare how allocation concealment is described in publications of randomised clinical trials and corresponding protocols, and to estimate how often trial publications with unclear allocation concealment have adequate concealment according to the protocol. DESIGN: Cohort study of 102 sets of trial protocols and corresponding publications. SETTING: Protocols of randomised trials approved by the scientific and ethical committees for Copenhagen and Frederiksberg, 1994 and 1995. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Frequency of adequate, unclear, and inadequate allocation concealment and sequence generation in trial publications compared with protocols, and the proportion of protocols where methods were reported to be adequate but descriptions were unclear in the trial publications. RESULTS: 96 of the 102 trials had unclear allocation concealment according to the trial publication. According to the protocols, 15 of these 96 trials had adequate allocation concealment (16%, 95% confidence interval 9% to 24%), 80 had unclear concealment (83%, 74% to 90%), and one had inadequate concealment. When retrospectively defined loose criteria for concealment were applied, 83 of the 102 trial publications had unclear concealment. According to their protocol, 33 of these 83 trials had adequate allocation concealment (40%, 29% to 51%), 49 had unclear concealment (59%, 48% to 70%), and one had inadequate concealment. CONCLUSIONS: Most randomised clinical trials have unclear allocation concealment on the basis of the trial publication alone. Most of these trials also have unclear allocation concealment according to their protocol.

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.38414.422650.8f

Cites

26 of 26 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 sequence generation was not described in three quarters of randomised trial protocols approved by a research ethics committee in Denmark in 1994-95, and a US cooperative cancer research group in 1968-2006.

    “The method of sequence generation was not described in three quarters of randomised trial protocols approved by a research ethics committee in Denmark in 1994-95, and a US cooperative cancer research group in 1968-2006.329 330”
  • In one study of randomised trial protocols in Denmark, more than half did not adequately describe allocation concealment methods.

    “In one study of randomised trial protocols in Denmark, more than half did not adequately describe allocation concealment methods.329”
  • Similar results on outcome reporting bias have been reported in other jurisdictions.

    “These disturbing results have been reported in other jurisdictions. 12,13”

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

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Nordic Cochrane Centre, H:S Rigshospitalet, DK-2100 Copenhagen, Denmark Julie Pildal research fellow Asbjørn Hróbjartsson senior research fellow Elisabeth Forfang physician Peter C Gøtzsche director Department of Medicine, University of Toronto An-Wen Chan resident physician Cancer Research UK Medical Statistics Group, Centre for Statistics in Medicine, Oxford OX3 7LF

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Pildal, J., Chan, A.-W., Hróbjartsson, A., Forfang, E., Altman, D. G., & Gøtzsche, P. C.
Affiliations
  • Rigshospitalet (DK)
  • University of Toronto (CA)
  • Cancer Research UK (GB)
Corresponding author
Pildal, Julie
Venue
BMJ
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2005-04-07
Volume
330
Issue
7499
Pages
1049
ISSN
  • 0007-1447 (ISSN-L)
  • 0959-8138
  • 1468-5833
OpenAlex
W2144441836
Cited by
209
References
26
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 13 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 14 · 2012: 14
FWCI
19.09
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)
Funders
Cancer Research UK
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
  • Life Sciences › Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics › Pharmacology › Pharmaceutical industry and healthcare
Keywords
allocation concealment, randomized controlled trials, sequence generation
MeSH terms
Random Allocation, Cohort Studies, 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