CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 180Statistical Methods in Clinical TrialsMeta-analysis and systematic reviewsAdvanced Causal Inference Techniques

Risk of selection bias in randomised trials

Open access
Kahan, Brennan C., Rehal, Sunita, Cro, Suzie·2015·Trials
DOI 10.1186/s13063-015-0920-xPMC PMC4566301
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Selection bias occurs when recruiters selectively enrol patients into the trial based on what the next treatment allocation is likely to be. This can occur even if appropriate allocation concealment is used if recruiters can guess the next treatment assignment with some degree of accuracy. This typically occurs in unblinded trials when restricted randomisation is implemented to force the number of patients in each arm or within each centre to be the same. Several methods to reduce the risk of selection bias have been suggested; however, it is unclear how often these techniques are used in practice. METHODS: We performed a review of published trials which were not blinded to assess whether they utilised methods for reducing the risk of selection bias. We assessed the following techniques: (a) blinding of recruiters; (b) use of simple randomisation; (c) avoidance of stratification by site when restricted randomisation is used; (d) avoidance of permuted blocks if stratification by site is used; and (e) incorporation of prognostic covariates into the randomisation procedure when restricted randomisation is used. We included parallel group, individually randomised phase III trials published in four general medical journals (BMJ, Journal of the American Medical Association, The Lancet, and New England Journal of Medicine) in 2010. RESULTS: We identified 152 eligible trials. Most trials (98%) provided no information on whether recruiters were blind to previous treatment allocations. Only 3% of trials used simple randomisation; 63% used some form of restricted randomisation, and 35% did not state the method of randomisation. Overall, 44% of trials were stratified by site of recruitment; 27% were not, and 29% did not report this information. Most trials that did stratify by site of recruitment used permuted blocks (58%), and only 15% reported using random block sizes. Many trials that used restricted randomisation also included prognostic covariates in the randomisation procedure (56%). CONCLUSIONS: The risk of selection bias could not be ascertained for most trials due to poor reporting. Many trials which did provide details on the randomisation procedure were at risk of selection bias due to a poorly chosen randomisation methods. Techniques to reduce the risk of selection bias should be more widely implemented.

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/s13063-015-0920-x

Cites

30 of 30 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?

  • This finding is consistent with findings in individual randomized trials which have also been identified at risk of bias due to implementation of the randomization process.

    “This finding is consistent with findings in individual randomized trials which have also been identified at risk of bias due to implementation of the randomization process [21].”

    From Cluster randomized trials of individual-level interventions were at high risk of bias (2021) · cites this paper as [21]

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

3 of the 33 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Kahan, B. C., Rehal, S., & Cro, S.
Affiliations
  • Queen Mary University of London (GB)
  • MRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL (GB)
Corresponding author
Kahan, Brennan C.
ORCID
Venue
Trials
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2015-09-10
Volume
16
Issue
1
Pages
405-405
ISSN
1745-6215 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1186/s13063-015-0920-x
PMC
PMC4566301
OpenAlex
W1703551835
Cited by
180
References
33
Citations by year
2026: 12 · 2025: 21 · 2024: 21 · 2023: 18 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 19 · 2020: 36 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 1
FWCI
7.42
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Trials (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
  • Queen Mary Research Online (Queen Mary University of London) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Spiral (Imperial College London) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
Medical Research Council (MC_UU_12023/29)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Advanced Causal Inference Techniques
Keywords
selection bias, randomization methods, allocation concealment, prognostic factors, reporting quality
MeSH terms
Humans, Selection Bias, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Clinical Trials, Phase III as Topic, 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