In reply to Berger "don't test for baseline imbalances unless they are known to be present?"

Quality of Life Research

Volumn 18, Issue 4, 2009, Pages 401-402

  Fayers, P M ^a,b   King, M T ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ABERDEEN   (United Kingdom)

^b TRONDHEIM UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Norway)

^c UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY   (Australia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ANALYTICAL ERROR; EPIDEMIOLOGY; HUMAN; NOTE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROBABILITY; RANDOMIZATION; RISK ASSESSMENT; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE;

CLINICAL TRIALS AS TOPIC; HUMANS; PROBABILITY; RANDOM ALLOCATION; SELECTION BIAS;

EID: 63949085132     PISSN: 09629343     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11136-009-9458-2     Document Type: Note

References (4)

1. WC Thompson EL Schumann 1987 Interpretation of statistical evidence in criminal trials: The prosecutor's fallacy and the defense attorney's fallacy Law and Human Behavior 11 167 187 10.1007/BF01044641
2. Pocock, S. J. (1983). Clinical trials: A practical approach. Chichester: Wiley & Sons.
3. CE Hewitt DJ Torgerson 2006 Is restricted randomisation necessary? British Medical Journal 332 1506 1508 10.1136/bmj.332.7556.1506
4. KF Schulz DA Grimes 2002 Generation of allocation sequences in randomised trials: Chance, not choice Lancet 359 515 519 10.1016/S0140-6736(02)07683-3