Cookies on this website

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you click 'Accept all cookies' we'll assume that you are happy to receive all cookies and you won't see this message again. If you click 'Reject all non-essential cookies' only necessary cookies providing core functionality such as security, network management, and accessibility will be enabled. Click 'Find out more' for information on how to change your cookie settings.

80 reports of randomised clinical trials in four leading general medical journals were reviewed. The reporting of the methodology of randomisation was inadequate. In 30% of trials there was no clear evidence that the groups had been randomised. Among trials that used simple randomisation the sample sizes in the two groups were too often similar, and there was an unexpected small bias in favour of there being fewer patients in the experimental group. The handling of comparisons of baseline characteristics was inadequate in 41% of the trials. Suggestions are made for improving standards.


Journal article



Publication Date





149 - 153


Bias, Double-Blind Method, Meta-Analysis as Topic, Prognosis, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Research Design