A systematic review of randomisation method use in RCTs and association of trial design characteristics with method selection.
Allocation
Minimisation
Randomisation
Review
Stratification
Journal
BMC medical research methodology
ISSN: 1471-2288
Titre abrégé: BMC Med Res Methodol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100968545
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
07 12 2022
07 12 2022
Historique:
received:
13
06
2022
accepted:
07
11
2022
entrez:
8
12
2022
pubmed:
9
12
2022
medline:
15
12
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
When conducting a randomised controlled trial, there exist many different methods to allocate participants, and a vast array of evidence-based opinions on which methods are the most effective at doing this, leading to differing use of these methods. There is also evidence that study characteristics affect the performance of these methods, but it is unknown whether the study design affects researchers' decision when choosing a method. We conducted a review of papers published in five journals in 2019 to assess which randomisation methods are most commonly being used, as well as identifying which aspects of study design, if any, are associated with the choice of randomisation method. Randomisation methodology use was compared with a similar review conducted in 2014. The most used randomisation method in this review is block stratification used in 162/330 trials. A combination of simple, randomisation, block randomisation, stratification and minimisation make up 318/330 trials, with only a small number of more novel methods being used, although this number has increased marginally since 2014. More complex methods such as stratification and minimisation seem to be used in larger multicentre studies. Within this review, most methods used can be classified using a combination of simple, block stratification and minimisation, suggesting that there is not much if any increase in the uptake of newer more novel methods. There seems to be a noticeable polarisation of method use, with an increase in the use of simple methods, but an increase in the complexity of more complex methods, with greater numbers of variables included in the analysis, and a greater number of strata.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
When conducting a randomised controlled trial, there exist many different methods to allocate participants, and a vast array of evidence-based opinions on which methods are the most effective at doing this, leading to differing use of these methods. There is also evidence that study characteristics affect the performance of these methods, but it is unknown whether the study design affects researchers' decision when choosing a method.
METHODS
We conducted a review of papers published in five journals in 2019 to assess which randomisation methods are most commonly being used, as well as identifying which aspects of study design, if any, are associated with the choice of randomisation method. Randomisation methodology use was compared with a similar review conducted in 2014.
RESULTS
The most used randomisation method in this review is block stratification used in 162/330 trials. A combination of simple, randomisation, block randomisation, stratification and minimisation make up 318/330 trials, with only a small number of more novel methods being used, although this number has increased marginally since 2014. More complex methods such as stratification and minimisation seem to be used in larger multicentre studies.
CONCLUSIONS
Within this review, most methods used can be classified using a combination of simple, block stratification and minimisation, suggesting that there is not much if any increase in the uptake of newer more novel methods. There seems to be a noticeable polarisation of method use, with an increase in the use of simple methods, but an increase in the complexity of more complex methods, with greater numbers of variables included in the analysis, and a greater number of strata.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36476324
doi: 10.1186/s12874-022-01786-4
pii: 10.1186/s12874-022-01786-4
pmc: PMC9727841
doi:
Types de publication
Systematic Review
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
314Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s).
Références
Trials. 2012 Oct 26;13:198
pubmed: 23101457
Stat Med. 2012 Feb 20;31(4):328-40
pubmed: 22139891
J Clin Epidemiol. 1999 Jan;52(1):19-26
pubmed: 9973070
BMJ. 2006 Jun 24;332(7556):1506-8
pubmed: 16793819
Br J Cancer. 2012 Mar 27;106(7):1259-61
pubmed: 22415237
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2014 Feb 10;14:20
pubmed: 24512175
Control Clin Trials. 1988 Dec;9(4):365-74
pubmed: 3203526
Stat Med. 2013 Apr 30;32(9):1439-50
pubmed: 23255195
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2019 Jul 3;19(1):136
pubmed: 31269898
Stat Med. 1999 Jul 30;18(14):1753-5
pubmed: 10407245
BMJ. 2010 Mar 23;340:c332
pubmed: 20332509