The impact of trial baseline imbalances should be considered in systematic reviews: a methodological case study

Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

Volumn 60, Issue 12, 2007, Pages 1229-1233

  Trowman, Rebecca ^a   Dumville, Jo C ^b   Torgerson, David J ^b   Cranny, Gillian ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LEEDS   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF YORK   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Baseline differences; Baseline imbalances; Clinical Trials; Meta analysis; Randomization; Systematic reviews

Indexed keywords

CALCIUM;

ANALYSIS OF COVARIANCE; BODY WEIGHT; DATA ANALYSIS; HUMAN; METHODOLOGY; OUTCOMES RESEARCH; PLANNING; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROGNOSIS; RELIABILITY; REVIEW; SAMPLE SIZE; SCORING SYSTEM; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW;

BIAS (EPIDEMIOLOGY); CALCIUM; DIETARY SUPPLEMENTS; HUMANS; META-ANALYSIS AS TOPIC; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS AS TOPIC; REVIEW LITERATURE AS TOPIC; TREATMENT OUTCOME; WEIGHT LOSS;

EID: 35848935001     PISSN: 08954356     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.03.014     Document Type: Review

References (19)

1. Rosenberger W., and Lachin J. Randomization in clinical trials: theory and practice (2002), Wiley, New York
2. Schulz K.F., and Grimes D.A. Allocation concealment in randomised trials: defending against deciphering. Lancet 359 (2002) 614-618
3. Moher D., Schulz K.F., Altman D.G., and For the CONSORT group. Revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel group randomised trials 2001. Lancet 357 (2001) 1191-1194
4. Hewitt C., Hahn S., Torgerson D.J., Watson J., and Bland M.J. Adequacy and reporting of allocation concealment: review of recent trials published in four general medical journals. BMJ 330 (2005) 1057-1058
5. Kunz R, Vist G. Oxman A.D. Randomisation to protect against selection bias in healthcare trials. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2007, issue 2. Art. no. MR000012. doi: 10.1002/14651858.MR000012.pub2.
6. Senn S. Covariate imbalance and random allocation in clinical trials. Stat Med 8 (1989) 467-475
7. Senn S. Testing for baseline balance in clinical trials. Stat Med 13 (1994) 1715-1726
8. Roberts C., and Torgerson D.J. Baseline imbalance in randomised controlled trials. BMJ 319 (1999) 185
9. Vickers A.J., and Altman D.G. Analysing controlled trials with baseline and follow up measurements. BMJ 323 (2001) 1123-1124
10. Twisk J., and Proper K. Evaluation of the results of a randomized controlled trial: how to define changes between baseline and follow-up. J Clin Epidemiol 57 (2004) 223-228
11. Berger V.W., and Weinstein S. Ensuring the comparability of comparison groups: is randomization enough?. Control Clin Trials 25 (2004) 515-524
12. Berger V.W., and Exner D.V. Detecting selection bias in randomized clinical trials. Control Clin Trials 20 4 (1999) 319-327
13. Analysing and presenting results. [updated May 2005]; Section 8. In: Deeks J.J., Higgins J.P.T., Altman D.G., Higgins J.P.T., and Green S. (Eds). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions 4.2.5. The Cochrane Library, Issue 3 (2005), John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, Chichester, UK
14. Trowman R., Dumville J.C., Hahn S., and Torgerson D.J. A systematic review of the effects of calcium supplementation on body weight. Br J Nutr 95 (2006) 1033-1038
15. Zemel M.B. Mechanisms of dairy modulation of adiposity. J Nutr 133 (2003) 252S-256S
16. Gotzsche P.C., and Olsen O. Is screening for breast cancer with mammography justifiable?. Lancet 355 9198 (2000) 129-134
17. Martinsson L., Wahlgren N.G., and Hardemark H.G. Amphetamines for improving recovery after stroke. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 3 (2003) CD002090
18. Senn S.J. An unreasonable prejudice against modelling?. Pharm Stat 4 (2005) 87-89
19. Altman D.G. Practical statistics for medical research (1999), Chapman & Hall, London, UK