ReviewResearch synthesis methods2016
Randomization methods in emergency setting trials: a descriptive review.
Review in Research synthesis methods, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Exercise, Mediterranean Diet Adherence or Both during Pregnancy to Prevent Postpartum Depression-GESTAFIT Trial Secondary Analyses.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Trial
- Rapid centralised randomisation in emergency setting trials using a smartphone.European journal of pediatrics · 2022Trial
- Comparison of ceftriaxone plus macrolide and ampicillin/sulbactam plus macrolide in treatment for patients with community-acquired pneumonia without risk factors for aspiration: an open-label, quasi-randomized, controlled trial.BMC pulmonary medicine · 2020Trial
- Do Laser-Activated Irrigation Protocols Improve Endodontic Success? A Prospective Clinical Comparison of 1-Year Periapical Healing with Sonic, Ultrasonic, Manual Dynamic and Conventional Techniques.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Histological efficacy of high-dose intravenous vitamin C infusion in severely burned patients.Journal of molecular histology · 2025Article
- Article
- Single-Stage Versus 2-Stage Facial Reanimation With a Free Functional Muscle Flap: Protocol for a Systematic Review.JMIR research protocols · 2025Article
- Randomization methods in emergency setting trials: a descriptive review.Research synthesis methods · 2016Review
- The assessment of the quality of randomized controlled trials published in Indian medical journals.Perspectives in clinical researchArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundQuasi-randomization might expedite recruitment into trials in emergency care settings but may also introduce selection bias.
methodsWe searched the Cochrane Library and other databases for systematic reviews of interventions in emergency medicine or urgent care settings. We assessed selection bias (baseline imbalances) in prognostic indicators between treatment groups in trials using true randomization versus trials using quasi-randomization.
resultsSeven reviews contained 16 trials that used true randomization and 11 that used quasi-randomization. Baseline group imbalance was identified in four trials using true randomization (25%) and in two quasi-randomized trials (18%). Of the four truly randomized trials with imbalance, three concealed treatment allocation adequately. Clinical heterogeneity and poor reporting limited the assessment of trial recruitment outcomes.
conclusionsWe did not find strong or consistent evidence that quasi-randomization is associated with selection bias more often than true randomization. High risk of bias judgements for quasi-randomized emergency studies should therefore not be assumed in systematic reviews. Clinical heterogeneity across trials within reviews, coupled with limited availability of relevant trial accrual data, meant it was not possible to adequately explore the possibility that true randomization might result in slower trial recruitment rates, or the recruitment of less representative populations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.