Do variations in allocation concealment methods influence the effects found in intervention reviews?

Cho Naing, Syed Shahzad Hasan, Kyan Aung

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

Abstract

Objective (i) To explore any discrepancies in intervention effects between a set of Cochrane reviews that includes trials with liberal criteria and a set with restrictive criteria in which trials with liberal design have been removed from the review, and (ii) to suggest ways to improve the quality of evidence. Methods A documentary analysis of three Cochrane reviews of intervention studies. The selection of the Cochrane reviews was based on a two-stage sampling. The stability of effect measures after removal of trials with liberal design was investigated. Results In two of the three reviews, we found changes in the original effect measure of the intervention after removing the studies without allocation concealment. One of these reported an 87% greater relative risk when randomized trials with liberal design were included. In the other, the risk was 19.5% lower when randomized trials with liberal design were included. Conclusions The instability of the effect measure indicates the importance of allocation concealment during recruitment for clinical trials. We recommend further research incorporating a large number of intervention reviews and factors other than allocation concealment.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)255-258
Number of pages4
JournalJournal of Evidence-Based Medicine
Volume4
Issue number4
Early online date29 Nov 2011
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Nov 2011
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Clinical Trials
Research

Cite this

@article{41c9354d01b34b56b678f066d26f04ea,
title = "Do variations in allocation concealment methods influence the effects found in intervention reviews?",
abstract = "Objective (i) To explore any discrepancies in intervention effects between a set of Cochrane reviews that includes trials with liberal criteria and a set with restrictive criteria in which trials with liberal design have been removed from the review, and (ii) to suggest ways to improve the quality of evidence. Methods A documentary analysis of three Cochrane reviews of intervention studies. The selection of the Cochrane reviews was based on a two-stage sampling. The stability of effect measures after removal of trials with liberal design was investigated. Results In two of the three reviews, we found changes in the original effect measure of the intervention after removing the studies without allocation concealment. One of these reported an 87{\%} greater relative risk when randomized trials with liberal design were included. In the other, the risk was 19.5{\%} lower when randomized trials with liberal design were included. Conclusions The instability of the effect measure indicates the importance of allocation concealment during recruitment for clinical trials. We recommend further research incorporating a large number of intervention reviews and factors other than allocation concealment.",
author = "Cho Naing and Hasan, {Syed Shahzad} and Kyan Aung",
year = "2011",
month = "11",
doi = "10.1111/j.1756-5391.2011.01156.x",
language = "English",
volume = "4",
pages = "255--258",
journal = "Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine",
issn = "1756-5383",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "4",

}

Do variations in allocation concealment methods influence the effects found in intervention reviews? / Naing, Cho; Hasan, Syed Shahzad; Aung, Kyan.

In: Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine, Vol. 4, No. 4, 11.2011, p. 255-258.

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

TY - JOUR

T1 - Do variations in allocation concealment methods influence the effects found in intervention reviews?

AU - Naing, Cho

AU - Hasan, Syed Shahzad

AU - Aung, Kyan

PY - 2011/11

Y1 - 2011/11

N2 - Objective (i) To explore any discrepancies in intervention effects between a set of Cochrane reviews that includes trials with liberal criteria and a set with restrictive criteria in which trials with liberal design have been removed from the review, and (ii) to suggest ways to improve the quality of evidence. Methods A documentary analysis of three Cochrane reviews of intervention studies. The selection of the Cochrane reviews was based on a two-stage sampling. The stability of effect measures after removal of trials with liberal design was investigated. Results In two of the three reviews, we found changes in the original effect measure of the intervention after removing the studies without allocation concealment. One of these reported an 87% greater relative risk when randomized trials with liberal design were included. In the other, the risk was 19.5% lower when randomized trials with liberal design were included. Conclusions The instability of the effect measure indicates the importance of allocation concealment during recruitment for clinical trials. We recommend further research incorporating a large number of intervention reviews and factors other than allocation concealment.

AB - Objective (i) To explore any discrepancies in intervention effects between a set of Cochrane reviews that includes trials with liberal criteria and a set with restrictive criteria in which trials with liberal design have been removed from the review, and (ii) to suggest ways to improve the quality of evidence. Methods A documentary analysis of three Cochrane reviews of intervention studies. The selection of the Cochrane reviews was based on a two-stage sampling. The stability of effect measures after removal of trials with liberal design was investigated. Results In two of the three reviews, we found changes in the original effect measure of the intervention after removing the studies without allocation concealment. One of these reported an 87% greater relative risk when randomized trials with liberal design were included. In the other, the risk was 19.5% lower when randomized trials with liberal design were included. Conclusions The instability of the effect measure indicates the importance of allocation concealment during recruitment for clinical trials. We recommend further research incorporating a large number of intervention reviews and factors other than allocation concealment.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=82455186160&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1111/(ISSN)1756-5391

U2 - 10.1111/j.1756-5391.2011.01156.x

DO - 10.1111/j.1756-5391.2011.01156.x

M3 - Review article

VL - 4

SP - 255

EP - 258

JO - Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine

JF - Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine

SN - 1756-5383

IS - 4

ER -