Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Trials 1/2012

Open Access 01-12-2012 | Methodology

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

Authors: Melissa J Parker, Asmaa Manan, Mark Duffett

Published in: Trials | Issue 1/2012

Login to get access

Abstract

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.
Literature
1.
go back to reference 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. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.02.005.CrossRef 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. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.02.005.CrossRef
2.
go back to reference 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. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.03.004.CrossRefPubMed 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. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.03.004.CrossRefPubMed
4.
go back to reference Schulz K: Subverting randomization in controlled trials. JAMA. 1995, 274: 1456-1458. 10.1001/jama.1995.03530180050029.CrossRefPubMed Schulz K: Subverting randomization in controlled trials. JAMA. 1995, 274: 1456-1458. 10.1001/jama.1995.03530180050029.CrossRefPubMed
5.
go back to reference Schulz KF, Grimes DA: Allocation concealment in randomised trials: defending against deciphering. Lancet. 2002, 359: 614-618. 10.1016/S0140-6736(02)07750-4.CrossRefPubMed Schulz KF, Grimes DA: Allocation concealment in randomised trials: defending against deciphering. Lancet. 2002, 359: 614-618. 10.1016/S0140-6736(02)07750-4.CrossRefPubMed
6.
go back to reference 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. 10.1001/jama.1995.03520290060030.CrossRefPubMed 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. 10.1001/jama.1995.03520290060030.CrossRefPubMed
7.
go back to reference 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. 10.1016/S0140-6736(98)01085-X.CrossRefPubMed 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. 10.1016/S0140-6736(98)01085-X.CrossRefPubMed
9.
go back to reference 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. 2011, 2 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. 2011, 2
10.
go back to reference Pocock S: Allocation of patients to treatment in clinical trials. Biometrics. 1979, 35: 183-197. 10.2307/2529944.CrossRefPubMed Pocock S: Allocation of patients to treatment in clinical trials. Biometrics. 1979, 35: 183-197. 10.2307/2529944.CrossRefPubMed
11.
go back to reference Higgins JPT, Altman DG, Sterne JAC: Chapter 8: Assessing risk of bias in included studies. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0. Edited by: Higgins JPT, Green S. 2011, The Cochrane Collaboration, Oxford Higgins JPT, Altman DG, Sterne JAC: Chapter 8: Assessing risk of bias in included studies. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0. Edited by: Higgins JPT, Green S. 2011, The Cochrane Collaboration, Oxford
13.
go back to reference Doig GS, Simpson F: Randomization and allocation concealment: a practical guide for researchers. J Crit Care. 2005, 20: 187-191. 10.1016/j.jcrc.2005.04.005.CrossRefPubMed Doig GS, Simpson F: Randomization and allocation concealment: a practical guide for researchers. J Crit Care. 2005, 20: 187-191. 10.1016/j.jcrc.2005.04.005.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Rapid, easy, and cheap randomization: prospective evaluation in a study cohort
Authors
Melissa J Parker
Asmaa Manan
Mark Duffett
Publication date
01-12-2012
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Trials / Issue 1/2012
Electronic ISSN: 1745-6215
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/1745-6215-13-90

Other articles of this Issue 1/2012

Trials 1/2012 Go to the issue