Bias in Treatment Assignment in Controlled Clinical Trials

Thomas C. Chalmers, Paul Celano, Henry S. Sacks, Harry Smith

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

691 Scopus citations

Abstract

Controlled clinical trials of the treatment of acute myocardial infarction offer a unique opportunity for the study of the potential influence on outcome of bias in treatment assignment. A group of 145 papers was divided into those in which the randomization process was blinded (57 papers), those in which it may have been unblinded (45 papers), and those in which the controls were selected by a nonrandom process (43 papers). At least one prognostic variable was maldistributed (P<0.05) in 14.0 per cent of the blinded-randomization studies, in 26.7 per cent of the unblinded-randomization studies, and in 58.1 per cent of the nonrandomized studies. Differences in case-fatality rates between treatment and control groups (P<0.05) were found in 8.8 per cent of the blinded-randomization studies, 24.4 per cent of the unblinded-randomization studies, and 58.1 per cent of the nonrandomized studies. These data emphasize the importance of keeping those who recruit patients for clinical trials from suspecting which treatment will be assigned to the patient under consideration. (N Engl J Med 1983; 309:1358–61.).

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1358-1361
Number of pages4
JournalNew England Journal of Medicine
Volume309
Issue number22
DOIs
StatePublished - 1 Dec 1983

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Bias in Treatment Assignment in Controlled Clinical Trials'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this