Methodological survey of designed uneven randomization trials (DU-RANDOM): a protocol

Abstract

BackgroundAlthough even randomization (that is, approximately 1:1 randomization ratio in study arms) provides the greatest statistical power, designed uneven randomization (DUR), (for example, 1:2 or 1:3) is used to increase participation rates. Until now, no convincing data exists addressing the impact of DUR on participation rates in trials. The objective of this study is to evaluate the epidemiology and to explore factors associated with DUR.MethodsWe will search for reports of RCTs published within two years in 25 general medical journals with the highest impact factor according to the Journal Citation Report (JCR)-2010. Teams of two reviewers will determine eligibility and extract relevant information from eligible RCTs in duplicate and using standardized forms. We will report the prevalence of DUR trials, the reported reasons for using DUR, and perform a linear regression analysis to estimate the association between the randomization ratio and the associated factors, including participation rate, type of informed consent, clinical area, and so on.DiscussionA clearer understanding of RCTs with DUR and its association with factors in trials, for example, participation rate, can optimize trial design and may have important implications for both researchers and users of the medical literature.

Traditional Dry Cupping Therapy Versus Medroxyprogesterone Acetate in the Treatment of Idiopathic Menorrhagia: A Randomized Controlled Trial

“…The results of the present study, because of the study design and larger sample size, confirmed the findings of Sultana study. In the before and after studies, considering the lack of parallel control group and random allocation process, the results are influenced by 2 main bias sources (regression to the mean and the effect of baseline values) (21,22). Therefore, such results are less reliable and valid.…”

Unbalanced rather than balanced randomized controlled trials are more often positive in favor of the new treatment: an exposed and nonexposed study

“…However, as already stated, this latter justification is fundamentally unethical [2] because an honest null hypothesis does not exist at the start of the trial. Another reason to use unequal randomization is to increase patients' agreement to participate, but this argument is flawed, according to Hey and Kimmelman [18], in that to date, unbalanced randomization has not been found to increase patient recruitment, although this issue is presently under study [19]. Often, unbalanced randomization is justified because it allows for gathering more safety data on the new treatment.…”

Impact of missing participant data for dichotomous outcomes on pooled effect estimates in systematic reviews: a protocol for a methodological study

“…They will also help in better defining how to assess risk of bias associated with MPD at the systematic review level and provide insight into the frequency with which MPD compromises trust in statistically significant meta-analytical results. Finally, the publication of this protocol will contribute to making the objectives and design of methodological surveys more transparent[ 2 , 8 , 21 – 24 ].…”