Article ; Online: Choosing and evaluating randomisation methods in clinical trials: a qualitative study.
2024 Volume 25, Issue 1, Page(s) 199
Abstract: Background: There exist many different methods of allocating participants to treatment groups during a randomised controlled trial. Although there is research that explores trial characteristics that are associated with the choice of method, there is ... ...
| Abstract | Background: There exist many different methods of allocating participants to treatment groups during a randomised controlled trial. Although there is research that explores trial characteristics that are associated with the choice of method, there is still a lot of variety in practice not explained. This study used qualitative methods to explore more deeply the motivations behind researchers' choice of randomisation, and which features of the method they use to evaluate the performance of these methods. Methods: Data was collected from online focus groups with various stakeholders involved in the randomisation process. Focus groups were recorded and then transcribed verbatim. A thematic analysis was used to analyse the transcripts. Results: Twenty-five participants from twenty clinical trials units across the UK were recruited to take part in one of four focus groups. Four main themes were identified: how randomisation methods are selected; researchers' opinions of the different methods; which features of the method are desirable and ways to measure method features. Most researchers agree that the randomisation method should be selected based on key trial characteristics; however, for many, a unit standard is in place. Opinions of methods were varied with some participants favouring stratified blocks and others favouring minimisation. This was generally due to researchers' perception of the effect these methods had on balance and predictability. Generally, predictability was considered more important than balance as adjustments cannot be made for it; however, most researchers felt that the importance of these two methods was dependent on the design of the study. Balance is usually evaluated by tabulating variables by treatment arm and looking for perceived imbalances, predictability was generally considered much harder to measure, partly due to differing definitions. Conclusion: There is a wide variety in practice on how randomisation methods are selected and researcher's opinions on methods. The difference in practice observed when looking at randomisation method selection can be explained by a difference in unit practice, and also by a difference in researchers prioritisation of balance and predictability. The findings of this study show a need for more guidance on randomisation method selection. |
|---|---|
| MeSH term(s) | Humans ; Qualitative Research ; Focus Groups |
| Language | English |
| Publishing date | 2024-03-20 |
| Publishing country | England |
| Document type | Randomized Controlled Trial ; Journal Article |
| ZDB-ID | 2040523-6 |
| ISSN | 1745-6215 ; 1468-6694 ; 1745-6215 |
| ISSN (online) | 1745-6215 |
| ISSN | 1468-6694 ; 1745-6215 |
| DOI | 10.1186/s13063-024-08005-z |
| Database | MEDical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System OnLINE |
More links
Kategorien
Order via subito
This service is chargeable due to the Delivery terms set by subito. Orders including an article and supplementary material will be classified as separate orders. In these cases, fees will be demanded for each order.