There are several issues here I think (and only my thoughts):
1.) the provided information is unclear as to the sequence generation so we cannot really say
2.) if at any stage, the central tenet of randomization which is unpredictability of future allocation, is breached, then the sequence generation is inadequate
3.) the goal of randomization is to ensure balance of known and unknown prognostic factors so that the effect can be allotted to 'only' the treatment under consideration...the way it is described below, we cannot say prognostic factors are balanced (at least thats how I read it)
4.) it is critical to understand what the allocation concealment strategy was for if it were deficient, or there were none, then no matter how good the sequence generation strategy (randomization) was, the randomization has failed...they go hand in hand
5.) the way it is described thus far, it appears (unless one can read the methods) that this was a form of minimization (adaptive randomization), so a deterministic form of randomization where the first entrant is randomized adequately where there is an equal probability of being assigned to either group and there is no predictability, but the other subsequent entrants to the trial are assigned based on prior assignment to achieve some form of prognostic balance. The researcher is guiding entrants to certain groups. The draw back with this form of randomization as you know (from what I understand) is that there is a form of determinism and thus one is violating the central tenet of randomization this being unpredictability (increased selection bias risk). Once you guide or determine the next assignment (e.g it appears they did to the AB group) and breach the 'no predictability', then one cannot say this is suitably randomized. To say assigned
'sequentially' is not giving us enough information, and could mean one goes to group 1 the other to group 2 then the third to group 1 and the fourth to group 2 and so on..this is fraught with predictability. Thats how I read it.
this is a very interesting question and the responses are very informative..thanks for sharing.
Best,
Paul E. Alexander
--------------------------------------------
On Tue, 7/2/13, Dr. Ahmed M. Abou-Setta <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
Subject: Re: randomisation
To: [log in to unmask]
Received: Tuesday, July 2, 2013, 2:52 AM
I will have to disagree here... I'm
not saying that this is a correct form of randomization, but
rather it is an unclear form of randomization until we know
more.
The authors stated "We assigned participants to two
groups by randomized sequential allocation. The first
patient was randomly assigned to the LC group by tossing a
coin, the second patient to the AB group, and the other
patients were assigned to the two groups,
sequentially." From this we can tell the following:
A) 1st patient was properly randomized.
B) 2nd patient was not quasi-randomized - unless they
entered two patients in the study at the same time.
C) Every patient after that may or may not have been
properly randomized depending on whether or not they kept
flipping coins or whether they used alternate
randomization.
This is the gray area where published protocols and
contacting authors for additional information/ clarification
comes in handy. In this case the protocol
(http://www.irct.ir/searchresult.php?id=1658&number=1)
doesn't help much. So the only remaining options are to
either make a decision based on what is available in the
published trial report or contact the author.
Ahmed
Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2013
20:57:35 -0400
From: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: randomisation
To: [log in to unmask]
Hi Mark,
I agree with Valerie, it also appears this study
was not blinded. We did a post http://www.ithinkwell.org/why-is-randomization-needed-in-clinical-trials/
and there is an excellent paper on this embedded written by
Jeremy Howick and a great 5 minute video supplied by Dr
Terry Shanyfelt. In the comments Paul Lucas has made some
astute observations and even uses an autologous example, I
hope this could be helpful , The guidelines I like best for
RCTs and systematic reviews come from a program called CASP
they are 10-11 point checklists with full explanations and
are a great way to see what you have in a simple and fair
way, they are free to download here under checklists http://www.casp-uk.net/
`I always try to give pers a pass but sometimes you
just cant!
BestAmy
From: Valerie King <[log in to unmask]>
Reply-To: Valerie
King <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Monday, July
1, 2013 8:29 PM
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re:
randomisation
In a word,
no.Could someone predict
which group the next subject would be allocated to? Yes.
Could that someone
therefore not enroll said subject, or consent for enrollment
differently, or hold off on enrollment, or some other action
in order to get the subject the care that the someone really
wanted or the subject really wanted? Of course, that someone
could do those things. Therefore it isn’t adequate
randomisation. Valerie J. King, MD,
MPHDirector of Evidence
and PolicyCenter for
Evidence-based PolicyOregon Health &
Science UniversityMailcode
SN-4N3455 SW US Veterans
Hospital Rd.Portland, OR
97239Voice:
503-494-8694Fax:
[log in to unmask] From:
Evidence based health (EBH) [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
On Behalf Of Mark Ayson
Sent: Monday, July 01, 2013 5:05 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: randomisation Dear
group I was
wondering if you could help me. I am working on a report
about autologous blood injections and have an RCT that
describes their randomisation technique as follows: "We
assigned participants to two groups by randomized sequential
allocation. The first patient was randomly assigned to the
LC group by tossing a coin, the second patient to the AB
group, and the other patients were assigned to the two
groups, sequentially."Is
this techniques an adequate method of
randomisation?I look
forward to your comments. Kind
regardsMark
Mark
Ayson, MBChB,
DPHResearch Advisor,
Governance, Policy
& Research, ACC
Tel 04-8166386 / Fax 04-8167562 / Ext
46386ACC / Research / Vogel House, 19 Aitken
Street
PO Box 242 / Wellington 6011 / New Zealand / www.acc.co.nz
ACC cares about the environment – please don’t print
this email
unless it is really necessary. Thank you.
Disclaimer:
"This message and any attachments may contain
confidential and privileged information.
If you believe you have received this email in error, please
advise us immediately by
return email or telephone and then delete this email
together with all attachments.
If you are not the intended recipient, you are not
authorised to use or copy this message
or any attachments or disclose the contents to any other
person. "
|