Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To update a 2005 review of the reasons researchers have given for the use of unequal randomisation in randomised controlled trials (RCTs).
MAIN MEASURES: Intervention being tested; type of study; number of participants; randomisation ratio; sample size calculation and reason given for using unequal randomisation.
METHODS: Review of trials using unequal randomisation.
DATABASES AND SOURCES: Cochrane library, Medline and CINAHL.
RESULTS: A total of 86 trials were identified. Of these 82 trials (95%) recruited patients in favour of the experimental group. Various reasons for the use of unequal randomisation were given including: gaining treatment experience; identification of adverse events; ethical; logistic and enhancing recruitment. No trial reported explicitly used it for cost-effectiveness. Most of the papers (i.e. 47, 55%) did not state why they had used unequal randomisation and only 38 trials (44%) appeared to have taken the unequal randomisation into account in their sample size calculation.
CONCLUSION: Most studies did not mention the rationale for unequal allocation, and a significant proportion did not appear to account for it in the sample size calculations. Unlike the previous review economic considerations were not stated as a rationale for its use. A number of trials used it to enhance recruitment, although this has not been tested.
MAIN MEASURES: Intervention being tested; type of study; number of participants; randomisation ratio; sample size calculation and reason given for using unequal randomisation.
METHODS: Review of trials using unequal randomisation.
DATABASES AND SOURCES: Cochrane library, Medline and CINAHL.
RESULTS: A total of 86 trials were identified. Of these 82 trials (95%) recruited patients in favour of the experimental group. Various reasons for the use of unequal randomisation were given including: gaining treatment experience; identification of adverse events; ethical; logistic and enhancing recruitment. No trial reported explicitly used it for cost-effectiveness. Most of the papers (i.e. 47, 55%) did not state why they had used unequal randomisation and only 38 trials (44%) appeared to have taken the unequal randomisation into account in their sample size calculation.
CONCLUSION: Most studies did not mention the rationale for unequal allocation, and a significant proportion did not appear to account for it in the sample size calculations. Unlike the previous review economic considerations were not stated as a rationale for its use. A number of trials used it to enhance recruitment, although this has not been tested.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 113-122 |
| Number of pages | 10 |
| Journal | Contemporary Clinical Trials |
| Volume | 45 |
| Issue number | Part A |
| Early online date | 28 May 2015 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - 1 Nov 2015 |
| Externally published | Yes |