ArticleTrials2016
Risk of selection bias in randomized trials: further insight.
Article in Trials, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Design, Conduct, and Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials of Chinese Herbal Medicine.JAMA network open · 2026Article
- Reducing selection bias risk to enhance RCT validity: sandwich mixed randomization outperforms permuted block design.BMC medical research methodology · 2026Article
- Prodromal Dementia With Lewy Bodies: Evolution of Symptoms and Predictors of Dementia Onset.Journal of geriatric psychiatry and neurology · 2022Article
- Implementing Optimal Designs for Dose-Response Studies Through Adaptive Randomization for a Small Population Group.The AAPS journal · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
- Comment on
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The quality of randomization is an under-appreciated facet of trial design. The present piece represents an advance in our collective understanding of how allocation concealment and randomization relate to risk of selection bias in randomized trials, and other measures are also considered. Though the overwhelming majority of the advice given is timely and correct, it is more instructive to focus on the relatively narrow sliver of advice that is incorrect (namely, that trials should not stratify by site, and that unrestricted randomization is a solution to the problem of selection bias), so it is in this context that the comments here must be understood. In no way is this intended to be a rebuttal of the excellent work we have before us. Rather, it is a refinement.
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.