Cited by 793Statistical Methods in Clinical TrialsAdvanced Causal Inference TechniquesMeta-analysis and systematic reviews

Random allocation software for parallel group randomized trials

Open access
Saghaei, Mahmood·2004·BMC Medical Research Methodology

Abstract

Background: Typically, randomization software should allow users to exert control over the different aspects of randomization including block design, provision of unique identifiers and control over the format and type of program output. While some of these characteristics have been addressed by available software, none of them have all of these capabilities integrated into one package. The main objective of the Random Allocation Software project was to enhance the user's control over different aspects of randomization in parallel group trials, including output type and format, structure and ordering of generated unique identifiers and enabling users to specify group names for more than two groups. Results: The program has different settings for: simple and blocked randomizations; length, format and ordering of generated unique identifiers; type and format of program output; and saving sessions for future use. A formatted random list generated by this program can be used directly (without further formatting) by the coordinator of the research team to prepare and encode different drugs or instruments necessary for the parallel group trial. Conclusions: Random Allocation Software enables users to control different attributes of the random allocation sequence and produce qualified lists for parallel group trials.

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 · 10.1186/1471-2288-4-26

Cites

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?

Self-check

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

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

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 2 · Cited by 793

Authors
Saghaei, M.
Venue
BMC Medical Research Methodology
Published
2004-11-09
Volume
4
Issue
1
Pages
26-26
ISSN
1471-2288 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1551781691
Cited by
793
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 27 · 2025: 58 · 2024: 69 · 2023: 84 · 2022: 77 · 2021: 71 · 2020: 63 · 2019: 66 · 2018: 34 · 2017: 35 · 2016: 29 · 2015: 38 · 2014: 39 · 2013: 31 · 2012: 23
FWCI
2.36
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • BMC Medical Research Methodology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Advanced Causal Inference Techniques
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
Keywords
randomization, block randomization, unique identifiers, software development
MeSH terms
Algorithms, Data Interpretation, Statistical, Humans, Placebos, Random Allocation, Software, Software Design, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Information Storage and Retrieval, Sample Size, Patient Selection

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