Randomisation in clinical trials

Medical Journal of Australia

Volumn 177, Issue 10, 2002, Pages 565-567

  Beller, Elaine M ^b   Gebski, Val ^a   Keech, Anthony C ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY   (Australia)

^b UNIVERSITY OF QUEENSLAND   (Australia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CLINICAL TRIAL; COMPUTER SYSTEM; INTERNET; METHODOLOGY; OUTCOMES RESEARCH; PREDICTION; PROGNOSIS; RANDOMIZATION; REPRODUCIBILITY; SEQUENTIAL ANALYSIS; SHORT SURVEY; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; TELEPHONE; VALIDATION PROCESS;

EID: 0037132035     PISSN: 0025729X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.5694/j.1326-5377.2002.tb04955.x     Document Type: Short Survey

References (6)

1. Moher D, Schulz KF, Altman DG. The CONSORT statement: Revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel group randomized trials. Ann Intern Med 2001; 134: 657-662.
2. Keech A. Random Allocation. Introduction to Clinical Trials. Clinical Trials Research Methodology. Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials. The ICH GCP Guidelines. Hong Kong: The Clinical Trials Centre, 1998.
3. Pocock S. Clinical Trials. A Practical Approach. New York: John Wiley, 1984.
4. 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; 273: 408-412.
5. Moher D, Pharm B, Jones A, et al. Does quality of reports of randomised trials affect estimates of intervention efficacy reported in meta-analyses? Lancet 1998; 352: 609-613.
6. Gebski V, Beller E, Keech AC. Randomised trials: Elements of a good study. Med J Aust 2001; 175: 272-274.