Rapid, easy, and cheap randomization: prospective evaluation in a study cohort

Trials

Mark Duffett¹  Asmaa Manan²  Melissa J Parker³ 

[1] Division of Critical Care, Department of Pediatrics, McMaster Children’s Hospital and McMaster University, 1200 Main St W. Room 1E1A, Hamilton, ON, L8N 3Z5, Canada;Undergraduate Student, McMaster University, 1200 Main St W. Room 3A, Hamilton, ON, L8N 3Z5, Canada;Division of Emergency Medicine, Department of Pediatrics, The Hospital for Sick Children and The University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada

关键词: Handheld;    Computers;    Clinical trials;    Allocation;    Randomization;   

Others  :  1095518
DOI  :  10.1186/1745-6215-13-90

 received in 2012-02-08, accepted in 2012-05-23,  发布年份 2012

【 摘 要 】

Background

When planning a randomized controlled trial (RCT), investigators must select randomization and allocation procedures based upon a variety of factors. While third party randomization is cited as being among the most desirable randomization processes, many third party randomization procedures are neither feasible nor cost-effective for small RCTs, including pilot RCTs. In this study we present our experience with a third party randomization and allocation procedure that utilizes current technology to achieve randomization in a rapid, reliable, and cost-effective manner.

Methods

This method was developed by the investigators for use in a small 48-participant parallel group RCT with four study arms. As a nested study, the reliability of this randomization procedure was prospectively evaluated in this cohort. The primary outcome of this nested study was the proportion of subjects for whom allocation information was obtained by the Research Assistant within 15 min of the initial participant randomization request. A secondary outcome was the average time for communicating participant group assignment back to the Research Assistant. Descriptive information regarding any failed attempts at participant randomization as well as costs attributable to use of this method were also recorded. Statistical analyses included the calculation of simple proportions and descriptive statistics.

Results

Forty-eight participants were successfully randomized and group allocation instruction was received for 46 (96%) within 15 min of the Research Assistant placing the initial randomization request. Time elapsed in minutes until receipt of participant allocation instruction was Mean (SD) 3.1 +/− 3.6; Median (IQR) 2 (2,3); Range (1–20) for the entire cohort of 48. For the two participants for whom group allocation information was not received by the Research Assistant within the 15-min pass threshold, this information was obtained following a second request at 18 and 20 min, respectively. The method described here produced an email audit trail, which proved useful to the primary study.

Conclusions

We report a method of third party randomization that uses current technology to operationalize randomization and allocation in a rapid, easy, and cost-effective manner. Other investigators may find this method useful, particularly for small RCTs, including pilot RCTs, on a tight budget.

【 授权许可】

   
2012 Parker et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Shulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D, Group C: Consort 2010 Statement: Updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomized trials. J Clin Epidemiol 2010, 63:834-840.
• [2]Moher D, Hopewell S, Shulz KF, Montori V, Gotzsche PC, Deveraux PJ, Elbourne D, Egger M, Altman DG: Consort 2010 Explanation and Elaboration: Updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. J Clin Epidemiol 2010, 63:e1-e37.
• [3]Altman DG, Bland JM: Treatment allocation in controlled trials: why randomise? BMJ 1999, 318:1209.
• [4]Schulz K: Subverting randomization in controlled trials. JAMA 1995, 274:1456-1458.
• [5]Schulz KF, Grimes DA: Allocation concealment in randomised trials: defending against deciphering. Lancet 2002, 359:614-618.
• [6]Schulz K, Chalmers I, Hayes R, Altman D: Empirical evidence of bias. Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials. JAMA 1995, 273:408-412.
• [7]Moher D, Pham B, Jones A, Cook DJ, Jadad AR, Moher M, Tugwell P, Klassen TP: Does quality of reports of randomised trials affect estimates of intervention efficacy reported in meta-analyses? Lancet 1998, 352:609-613.
• [8]Altman DG, Bland JM: How to randomise. BMJ 1999, 319:703-704.
• [9]Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada 2nd edition. 2011.
• [10]Pocock S: Allocation of patients to treatment in clinical trials. Biometrics 1979, 35:183-197.
• [11]Higgins JPT, Altman DG, Sterne JAC: Chapter 8: Assessing risk of bias in included studies. In Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0. Edited by Higgins JPT, Green S. The Cochrane Collaboration, Oxford; 2011.
• [12]Altman DG, Schulz KF: Concealing treatment allocation in randomised trials. BMJ 2001, 323:446-447.
• [13]Doig GS, Simpson F: Randomization and allocation concealment: a practical guide for researchers. J Crit Care 2005, 20:187-191.