Cited by 555Statistical Methods in Clinical TrialsAdvanced Causal Inference TechniquesMeta-analysis and systematic reviews

Issues in Outcomes Research: An Overview of Randomization Techniques for Clinical Trials

Open access
Kang, Minsoo, Ragan, Brian G., Park, Jae-Hyeon·2008·Journal of Athletic Training

Abstract

Objective: To review and describe randomization techniques used in clinical trials, including simple, block, stratified, and covariate adaptive techniques. Background: Clinical trials are required to establish treatment efficacy of many athletic training procedures. In the past, we have relied on evidence of questionable scientific merit to aid the determination of treatment choices. Interest in evidence-based practice is growing rapidly within the athletic training profession, placing greater emphasis on the importance of well-conducted clinical trials. One critical component of clinical trials that strengthens results is random assignment of participants to control and treatment groups. Although randomization appears to be a simple concept, issues of balancing sample sizes and controlling the influence of covariates a priori are important. Various techniques have been developed to account for these issues, including block, stratified randomization, and covariate adaptive techniques. Advantages: Athletic training researchers and scholarly clinicians can use the information presented in this article to better conduct and interpret the results of clinical trials. Implementing these techniques will increase the power and validity of findings of athletic medicine clinical trials, which will ultimately improve the quality of care provided.

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 · 10.4085/1062-6050-43.2.215

Cites

29 of 29 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 selected 6-block randomization method may not be optimal for randomization, and the 4-block randomization method could have been a more optimal technique for this study.

    “First of all, one of the limitations may be the selected randomization method which was chosen to simply control balance across groups over time for a sample size of 60 participants. As published data suggest, the 6-block randomization method may not be optimal for randomization, as blocks are best used in smaller increments due to easier balance control. Therefore, the 4-block randomization”

    From Early Occupational Therapy Intervention post-stroke (EOTIPS): A randomized controlled trial (2024) · cites this paper as [69]

    The Block Randomization section says blocks are best used in smaller increments because balance is easier to control, and lists both 4 and 6 as possible block sizes for two groups. It does not evaluate the citing study’s 60 participants or conclude that a block size of 6 was suboptimal and 4 would have been optimal for that study. Page numbers were not provided in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    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

2 of the 31 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Altman, D. G. and J. M.Bland. How to randomise.BMJ1999. 319 (7211):703–704.
  2. Blair, E. Gold is not always good enough: the shortcomings of randomization when evaluating interventions in small heterogeneous samples. J Clin Epidemiol 2004. 57 (12):1219–1222.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kang, M., Ragan, B. G., & Park, J.-H.
Affiliations
  • Middle Tennessee State University (US)
  • University of Northern Iowa (US)
  • Korea National Sport University (KR)
Venue
Journal of Athletic Training
Published
2008-03
Volume
43
Issue
2
Pages
215-221
ISSN
1062-6050 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2103799103
Cited by
555
References
31
Citations by year
2026: 54 · 2025: 79 · 2024: 90 · 2023: 54 · 2022: 29 · 2021: 33 · 2020: 39 · 2019: 22 · 2018: 26 · 2017: 27 · 2016: 20 · 2015: 16 · 2014: 17 · 2013: 12 · 2012: 15
FWCI
6.61
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Athletic Training (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • UNI ScholarWorks (University of Northern Iowa) (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 technique, clinical trials, block randomization, stratified randomization, covariate-adaptive randomization, covariate control, evidence-based practice
MeSH terms
Clinical Trials as Topic, Female, Humans, Male, Random Allocation, Outcome Assessment, Health Care, Evidence-Based Medicine

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