Allocation concealment and blinding: when ignorance is bliss

Peta M Forder, Val J Gebski and Anthony C Keech
Med J Aust 2005; 182 (2): . || doi: 10.5694/j.1326-5377.2005.tb06584.x
Published online: 17 January 2005

Good study design involves minimising all possible sources of bias. Two important sources of bias arise through failure to mask (ie, conceal), first, the randomisation process and, second, the treatments after randomisation. Allocation concealment is the term used to describe the procedure for protecting the randomisation process so that the treatment to be allocated is not known before the patient is entered into the study. Blinding relates to the masking of the treatments after randomisation — from the patient, the investigator or the outcomes assessor. Without exception, allocation concealment is achievable in all randomised clinical trials. In contrast, it is not always possible to blind people to study treatments received. The CONSORT statement strongly encourages detailed reporting of the allocation concealment process and the measures taken to preserve blinding (Box 1).1

  • NHMRC Clinical Trials Centre, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW.



We thank Rhana Pike, Editor in the Life Sciences (ELS), for expert assistance in preparing this manuscript.

Competing interests:

None identified.

  • 1. Altman DG, Schulz KF, Moher D, et al. for the CONSORT Group. The revised CONSORT statement for reporting randomised trials: explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med 2001; 134: 663-694.
  • 2. Schulz KF, Grimes DA. Allocation concealment in randomised trials: defending against deciphering. Lancet 2002; 359: 614-618.
  • 3. Schulz KF, Grimes DA. Blinding in randomised trials: hiding who got what. Lancet 2002; 359: 696-700.
  • 4. Sackett DL. Turning a blind eye — why we don’t test for blindness at the end of our trials [letter]. BMJ 2004; 328: 1136.
  • 5. Ioannidis JPA, Polycarpou A, Ntais C, Pavlidis N. Randomised trials comparing chemotherapy regimens for advanced non-small cell lung cancer: biases and evolution over time. Eur J Cancer 2003; 39: 2278-2287.
  • 6. Schulz KF, Chalmers I, Grimes DA, Altman DG. Assessing the quality of randomisation from reports of controlled trials published in obstetrics and gynecology journals. JAMA 1994; 272: 125-128.
  • 7. Dickinson K, Bunn F, Wentz R, et al. Size and quality of randomised controlled trials in head injury: review of published studies. BMJ 2000; 320: 1308-1311.
  • 8. Schulz KF, Chalmers I, Altman DG. The landscape and lexicon of blinding in randomized trials. Ann Intern Med 2002; 136: 254-259.
  • 9. Kunz R, Oxman AD. The unpredictability paradox: review of empirical comparisons of randomised and non-randomised clinical trials. BMJ 1998; 317: 1185-1190.
  • 10. Altman DG, Schulz KF, Moher D. Turning a blind eye — testing the success of blinding and the CONSORT statement [letter]. BMJ 2004; 328: 1135.
  • 11. Aspirin Myocardial Infarction Study (AMIS) Research Group. A randomized, controlled trial of aspirin in persons recovered from myocardial infarction. JAMA 1980; 243: 661-669.
  • 12. Karloswki TR, Chalmers TC, Frenkel LD, et al. Ascorbic acid for the common cold. A prophylactic and therapeutic trial. JAMA 1975; 231: 1038-1042.
  • 13. Beller EM, Gebski V, Keech AC. Randomisation in clinical trials. Med J Aust 2002; 177: 565-567. <eMJA full text>


remove_circle_outline Delete Author
add_circle_outline Add Author

Do you have any competing interests to declare? *

I/we agree to assign copyright to the Medical Journal of Australia and agree to the Conditions of publication *
I/we agree to the Terms of use of the Medical Journal of Australia *
Email me when people comment on this article

Online responses are no longer available. Please refer to our instructions for authors page for more information.