Search tips
Search criteria 


Logo of bmjLink to Publisher's site
BMJ. 1996 March 23; 312(7033): 742–744.
PMCID: PMC2350472

Blinding and exclusions after allocation in randomised controlled trials: survey of published parallel group trials in obstetrics and gynaecology.


OBJECTIVE: To assess the methodological quality of approaches to blind ing and to handling of exclusions as reported in randomised trials from one medical specialty. DESIGN: Survey of published, parallel group randomised controlled trials. DATA SOURCES: A random sample of 110 reports in which allocation was described as randomised from 1990 and 1991 volumes of four journals of obstetrics and gynaecology. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The adequacy of the descriptions of double blinding and exclusions after randomisation. RESULTS: Through 31 trials reported being double blind, about twice as many could have been. Of the 31 trials only eight (26%) provided information on the protection of the allocation schedule and only five (16%) provided some written assurance of successful implementation of double blinding. Of 38 trials in which the authors provided sufficient information for readers to infer that no exclusions after randomisation had occurred, six (16%) reported adequate allocation concealment and none stated that an intention to treat analysis had been performed. That compared with 14 (27%) and six (12%), respectively, for the 52 trials that reported exclusions. CONCLUSIONS: Investigators could have double blinded more often. When they did double blind, they reported poorly and rarely evaluated it. Paradoxically, trials that reported exclusions seemed generally of a higher methodological standard than those that had no apparent exclusions. Exclusions from analysis may have been made in some of the trials in which no exclusions were reported. Editors and readers of reports of randomised trials should understand that flawed reporting of exclusions may often provide a misleading impression of the quality of the trial.

Full text

Full text is available as a scanned copy of the original print version. Get a printable copy (PDF file) of the complete article (699K), or click on a page image below to browse page by page. Links to PubMed are also available for Selected References.

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.
  • Chalmers TC, Levin H, Sacks HS, Reitman D, Berrier J, Nagalingam R. Meta-analysis of clinical trials as a scientific discipline. I: Control of bias and comparison with large co-operative trials. Stat Med. 1987 Apr-May;6(3):315–328. [PubMed]
  • Schulz KF, Chalmers I, Hayes RJ, Altman DG. Empirical evidence of bias. Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials. JAMA. 1995 Feb 1;273(5):408–412. [PubMed]
  • Schulz KF, Chalmers I, Grimes DA, Altman DG. Assessing the quality of randomization from reports of controlled trials published in obstetrics and gynecology journals. JAMA. 1994 Jul 13;272(2):125–128. [PubMed]
  • Altman DG, Doré CJ. Randomisation and baseline comparisons in clinical trials. Lancet. 1990 Jan 20;335(8682):149–153. [PubMed]
  • Williams DH, Davis CE. Reporting of assignment methods in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials. 1994 Aug;15(4):294–298. [PubMed]
  • Sonis J, Joines J. The quality of clinical trials published in The Journal of Family Practice, 1974-1991. J Fam Pract. 1994 Sep;39(3):225–235. [PubMed]
  • Chalmers TC, Smith H, Jr, Blackburn B, Silverman B, Schroeder B, Reitman D, Ambroz A. A method for assessing the quality of a randomized control trial. Control Clin Trials. 1981 May;2(1):31–49. [PubMed]
  • De Jonge H. Deficiencies in clinical reports for registration of drugs. Stat Med. 1983 Apr-Jun;2(2):155–166. [PubMed]
  • Sackett DL, Gent M. Controversy in counting and attributing events in clinical trials. N Engl J Med. 1979 Dec 27;301(26):1410–1412. [PubMed]
  • Lewis JA, Machin D. Intention to treat--who should use ITT? Br J Cancer. 1993 Oct;68(4):647–650. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • Gøtzsche PC. Methodology and overt and hidden bias in reports of 196 double-blind trials of nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs in rheumatoid arthritis. Control Clin Trials. 1989 Mar;10(1):31–56. [PubMed]
  • DerSimonian R, Charette LJ, McPeek B, Mosteller F. Reporting on methods in clinical trials. N Engl J Med. 1982 Jun 3;306(22):1332–1337. [PubMed]
  • Karlowski TR, Chalmers TC, Frenkel LD, Kapikian AZ, Lewis TL, Lynch JM. Ascorbic acid for the common cold. A prophylactic and therapeutic trial. JAMA. 1975 Mar 10;231(10):1038–1042. [PubMed]
  • Arnett RM, Jones JS, Horger EO., 3rd Effectiveness of 1% lidocaine dorsal penile nerve block in infant circumcision. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1990 Sep;163(3):1074–1080. [PubMed]
  • Meinert CL, Tonascia S, Higgins K. Content of reports on clinical trials: a critical review. Control Clin Trials. 1984 Dec;5(4):328–347. [PubMed]

Articles from BMJ : British Medical Journal are provided here courtesy of BMJ Group