A review finds that the autoreply e-mail function avoids problems of subject allocation concealment

Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

Volumn 59, Issue 6, 2006, Pages 567-569

  Cunningham, Andrew ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CENTRAL LANCASHIRE   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Automatic reply; E mail; Randomization; Subject allocation; Systematic bias; Transparency

Indexed keywords

CLINICAL RESEARCH; COMPUTER ANALYSIS; COMPUTER LANGUAGE; COMPUTER PROGRAM; E-MAIL; EVIDENCE BASED PRACTICE; INTERNET; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PRIVACY; RANDOMIZATION; RESOURCE ALLOCATION; REVIEW; SOFT TISSUE INJURY; SPORT INJURY;

ELECTRONIC MAIL; RANDOM ALLOCATION; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS; RESEARCH DESIGN;

EID: 33646505962     PISSN: 08954356     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2005.06.012     Document Type: Review

References (6)

1. Petticrew M., and Roberts H. Evidence, hierarchies and typologies: horses for courses. J Epidemiol Community Health 57 (2002) 527-529
2. Abel U., and Koch A. The role of randomization in clinical studies: myths and beliefs. J Clin Epidemiol 52 6 (1999) 487-497
3. Schultz K.F. Randomised trials, human nature, and reporting. Lancet 348 (1996) 596-598
4. Robinson E.J., Kerr C., Stevens A., et al. Lay conceptions of the ethical and scientific justifications for random allocation in clinical trials. Soc Sci Med 58 4 (2004) 811-824
5. Ogundipe L.O., Boardman A.P., and Masterson A. Randomisation in clinical trials. Br J Psychiatry 175 (1999) 581-584
6. Schulz K.F., and Grimes D.A. Allocation concealment in randomised trials: defending against deciphering. Lancet 359 (2002) 614-618