Related Experiment Video
Updated: Apr 4, 2026

Author Spotlight: Methodologies and Advancements of Chronic Pain Management Research
Published on: January 5, 2024
What is the influence of randomisation sequence generation and allocation concealment on treatment effects of
Susan Armijo-Olivo1, Humam Saltaji2, Bruno R da Costa3
1CLEAR Outcomes (Connecting Leadership, Education and Research) Research Program, University of Alberta, Edmonton Clinic Health Academy (ECHA), Edmonton, Alberta, Canada Faculty of Rehabilitation Medicine, Department of Physical Therapy, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada Faculty of Rehabilitation Medicine, Rehabilitation Research Center, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
Objective:
To determine if adequacy of randomisation and allocation concealment is associated with changes in effect sizes (ES) when comparing physical therapy (PT) trials with and without these methodological characteristics.
Design:
Meta-epidemiological study.
Participants:
A random sample of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) included in meta-analyses in the PT discipline were identified.
Intervention:
Data extraction including assessments of random sequence generation and allocation concealment was conducted independently by two reviewers. To determine the association between sequence generation, and allocation concealment and ES, a two-level analysis was conducted using a meta-meta-analytic approach.
Primary And Secondary Outcome Measures:
association between random sequence generation and allocation concealment and ES in PT trials.
Results:
393 trials included in 43 meta-analyses, analysing 44,622 patients contributed to this study. Adequate random sequence generation and appropriate allocation concealment were accomplished in only 39.7% and 11.5% of PT trials, respectively. Although trials with inappropriate allocation concealment tended to have an overestimate treatment effect when compared with trials with adequate concealment of allocation, the difference was non-statistically significant (ES=0.12; 95% CI -0.06 to 0.30). When pooling our results with those of Nuesch et al, we obtained a pooled statistically significant value (ES=0.14; 95% CI 0.02 to 0.26). There was no difference in ES in trials with appropriate or inappropriate random sequence generation (ES=0.02; 95% CI -0.12 to 0.15).
Conclusions:
Our results suggest that when evaluating risk of bias of primary RCTs in PT area, systematic reviewers and clinicians implementing research into practice should pay attention to these biases since they could exaggerate treatment effects. Systematic reviewers should perform sensitivity analysis including trials with low risk of bias in these domains as primary analysis and/or in combination with less restrictive analyses. Authors and editors should make sure that allocation concealment and random sequence generation are properly reported in trial reports.
More Related Videos
04:53A Clinical Trial Assessing the Safety, Efficacy, and Delivery of Olive-Oil-Based Three-Chamber Bags for Parenteral Nutrition
Published on: September 20, 2019
06:13Author Spotlight: Exploring the Impact of Reduced Resistance Exercise Volume on Metabolic Health
Published on: December 1, 2023
Related Concept Videos
Randomized Experiments
Simple randomization
Simple...
Blinding
Group Design
Blind Procedures
Bioequivalence Experimental Study Designs: Completely Randomized and Randomized Block Designs
Bioequivalence Experimental Study Designs: Repeated Measures, Cross-Over, Carry-Over, and Latin Square Designs