Allocation Concealment in Clinical Trials—Reply
- 20 November 2002
- journal article
- letter
- Published by American Medical Association (AMA)
- Vol. 288 (19) , 2408
- https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.288.19.2408-jlt1120-4-3
Abstract
In Reply: Dr Schulz and colleagues suggest that our results may differ from previous reports because definitions of quality measures, specifically allocation concealment, were not identical. Their point highlights a difficulty in applying quality measures and achieving consensus on precise definitions. We took great care to create definitions that were consistent with most prior applications of these quality measures and that were also unlikely to be misinterpreted by data extractors.1 We ended with very high agreement among data extractors.Keywords
This publication has 4 references indexed in Scilit:
- Systematic reviews in health care: Assessing the quality of controlled clinical trialsBMJ, 2001
- Does quality of reports of randomised trials affect estimates of intervention efficacy reported in meta-analyses?Published by Elsevier ,1998
- Can quality of clinical trials and meta-analyses be quantified?The Lancet, 1998
- Empirical evidence of bias. Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trialsJAMA, 1995