Connect
MJA
MJA

Allocation concealment and blinding: when ignorance is bliss

Vance W Berger
Med J Aust 2005; 183 (3): 165-166.

To the Editor: Forder et al conveyed that trials without allocation concealment have the potential to mislead.1 However, it is not true in any meaningful sense that “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.” Rather, “Masking may be defined as either the process (researchers not revealing treatment codes until the database is locked) or the result (complete ignorance of all trial participants as to which patients received which treatments). A masking claim indicates only the former . . . If masking is possible only some of the time, then clearly reference is being made to the result, and not the process. To be fair, then, one would have to ask if the result of allocation concealment is always possible . . . only the process of allocation concealment, but not its result, can be ensured.”2

  • Vance W Berger

  • National Cancer Institute, University of Maryland, Baltimore County, 6130 Executive Boulevard, MSC 7354, Bethesda, MD 20892, USA.

Correspondence: Vb78c@nih.gov

Author

remove_circle_outline Delete Author
add_circle_outline Add Author

Comment
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

Responses are now closed for this article.