ReviewTrials2015
Risk of selection bias in randomised trials.
Review in Trials, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 65 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.
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
65 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Psychological Interventions Added to Standard Care Improve Pain and Function Outcomes in Knee Osteoarthritis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Musculoskeletal care · 2025Pooled it
- Nanoparticle and microparticle-based systems for enhanced oral insulin delivery: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of nanobiotechnology · 2024Pooled it
- Reporting quality of randomized controlled trials evaluating non-vitamin K oral anticoagulants in atrial fibrillation: a systematic review.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2023Pooled it
- Effectiveness of the Air Purification Strategies for the Treatment of Allergic Asthma: A Meta-Analysis.International archives of allergy and immunology · 2020Pooled it
- A Systematic Review of Neuroprotective Strategies in the Management of Hypoglycemia.International journal of molecular sciences · 2019Pooled it
- Cost-effectiveness of treatments for non-osteoarthritic knee pain conditions: A systematic review.PloS one · 2018Pooled it
- Extracorporeal shock wave therapy (ESWT) in urology: a systematic review of outcome in Peyronie's disease, erectile dysfunction and chronic pelvic pain.World journal of urology · 2017Pooled it
- Periconception Maternal-Serum Vitamin D, Vaginal Bleeding, and Subchorionic Hemorrhage in Early Pregnancy.Nutrients · 2026Trial
- Preconception vitamin D status and subsequent risk of preeclampsia: A secondary cohort analysis from the EAGeR trial.Pregnancy hypertension · 2026Trial
- Periconception Maternal Vitamin D Status on Nausea and Vomiting Symptoms in Early Pregnancy Among Women with a History of Pregnancy Loss.Nutrients · 2026Trial
- Trial
- A Preliminary Investigation into the Use of Cannabis Suppositories and Online Mindful Compassion for Improving Sexual Function Among Women Following Gynaecological Cancer Treatment.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2024Trial
- Effects of C-reactive protein rapid testing and communication skills training on antibiotic prescribing for acute cough. A cluster factorial randomised controlled trial.NPJ primary care respiratory medicine · 2024Trial
- A randomized controlled trial testing a virtual program for Asian American women breast cancer survivors.Nature communications · 2023Trial
- Motivational interviewing telephone counseling to increase postpartum maintenance of abstinence from tobacco.Journal of substance abuse treatment · 2022Trial
- A stochastically curtailed two-arm randomised phase II trial design for binary outcomes.Pharmaceutical statistics · 2021Trial
- Combining external placebo-arm data in a prevention trial: effects of cocoa extract supplementation on cardiovascular disease.European journal of epidemiology · 2026Article
- Identifying and mitigating bias in multiple aspects of modern clinical research.Communications medicine · 2026Review
- Reducing selection bias risk to enhance RCT validity: sandwich mixed randomization outperforms permuted block design.BMC medical research methodology · 2026Article
- Article
5 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundSelection bias occurs when recruiters selectively enrol patients into the trial based on what the next treatment allocation is likely to be. This can occur even if appropriate allocation concealment is used if recruiters can guess the next treatment assignment with some degree of accuracy. This typically occurs in unblinded trials when restricted randomisation is implemented to force the number of patients in each arm or within each centre to be the same. Several methods to reduce the risk of selection bias have been suggested; however, it is unclear how often these techniques are used in practice.
methodsWe performed a review of published trials which were not blinded to assess whether they utilised methods for reducing the risk of selection bias. We assessed the following techniques: (a) blinding of recruiters; (b) use of simple randomisation; (c) avoidance of stratification by site when restricted randomisation is used; (d) avoidance of permuted blocks if stratification by site is used; and (e) incorporation of prognostic covariates into the randomisation procedure when restricted randomisation is used. We included parallel group, individually randomised phase III trials published in four general medical journals (BMJ, Journal of the American Medical Association, The Lancet, and New England Journal of Medicine) in 2010.
resultsWe identified 152 eligible trials. Most trials (98%) provided no information on whether recruiters were blind to previous treatment allocations. Only 3% of trials used simple randomisation; 63% used some form of restricted randomisation, and 35% did not state the method of randomisation. Overall, 44% of trials were stratified by site of recruitment; 27% were not, and 29% did not report this information. Most trials that did stratify by site of recruitment used permuted blocks (58%), and only 15% reported using random block sizes. Many trials that used restricted randomisation also included prognostic covariates in the randomisation procedure (56%).
conclusionsThe risk of selection bias could not be ascertained for most trials due to poor reporting. Many trials which did provide details on the randomisation procedure were at risk of selection bias due to a poorly chosen randomisation methods. Techniques to reduce the risk of selection bias should be more widely implemented.
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.