ReviewJornal vascular brasileiro2024
Techniques for randomization and allocation for clinical trials.
Review in Jornal vascular brasileiro, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Effect of Oral Corticosteroid Premedication on the Success of Anaesthetising Mandibular Teeth With Irreversible Pulpitis: A Systematic Review With Meta-Analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials.International endodontic journal · 2026Pooled it
- Histopathological evaluation of facial melasma treated with oral tranexamic acid alone and in combination with ketotifen.Anais brasileiros de dermatologiaTrial
- Effects of Resisted Versus Non-Resisted Sprint Training on Countermovement Jump and Sprint Force-Velocity Profile in Youth Footballers: A Randomised Controlled Trial.Sports (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Novel Technologies for Identifying Treatment Assignment in a Prehospital Pediatric Emergency Care Clinical Trial.Journal of the American College of Emergency Physicians open · 2026Article
- Omega-3 Fatty Acids Supplementation and Neuroprotection, Inflammation, Fatigue, and Physical Activity in Multiple Sclerosis: A Randomized Controlled Trial.Food science & nutrition · 2025Article
- Effectiveness of Pain Neuroscience Education in Physical Therapy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Brain sciences · 2025Review
- Outpatient treatment of varicose veins with endolaser in clinic vs. hospital: cost-benefit and safety assessment.Jornal vascular brasileiro · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Intervention studies require all participants to originate from the same population, with random allocation to intervention groups to ensure comparability. Randomization is crucial for minimizing confounding factors, allowing differences in outcomes to be attributed to the intervention. Simple randomization performs well for large samples (>100 per group), but smaller samples may require block or stratified randomization to balance group sizes and covariates. When randomization isn't feasible, quasi-randomized methods (e.g., based on dates or enrollment order) can help but must compensate with multivariate adjustments. Moreover, blinding and allocation concealment enhance internal validity and reproducibility. Allocation concealment (e.g., sealed envelopes) prevents bias during participant assignment while blinding mitigates detection and performance biases. Precise methodological descriptions in clinical trial registrations and publications enhance study reliability and reproducibility, highlighting the importance of rigorous planning and transparent reporting in intervention research. This article reviews the key concepts of randomization, blinding, and allocation concealment in interventional studies.
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.