Reply to Vorland et al. Mixed Random and Nonrandom Allocation, and Group Randomization Have Been Mislabeled and Misanalysed, Necessitating Reanalysis. Comment on "Conner et al. KiwiC for Vitality: Results of a Randomized Placebo-Controlled Trial Testing the Effects of Kiwifruit or Vitamin C Tablets on Vitality in Adults with Low Vitamin C Levels.

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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

1. When randomisation goes horribly wrong: examples of major failures of randomisation and strategies to avoid them.Trials · 2025
   Review
2. Smartphone survey data reveal the timecourse of changes in mood outcomes following vitamin C or kiwifruit intervention in adults with low vitamin C.The British journal of nutrition · 2024
   Article

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Funding

Abstract