Jornal Vascular Brasileiro
https://jvascbras.org/article/doi/10.1590/1677-5449.202400461
Jornal Vascular Brasileiro
Review Article

Técnicas de randomização e alocação para estudos clínicos

Techniques for randomization and allocation for clinical trials

Anna Carolina Miola; Ana Cláudia Cavalcante Espósito; Hélio Amante Miot

Downloads: 0
Views: 42

Resumo

Estudos de intervenção requerem que todos os participantes sejam provenientes da mesma população, com alocação aleatória aos grupos de intervenção (GI) para garantir comparabilidade. A randomização é fundamental para minimizar fatores de confusão, permitindo que diferenças nos resultados sejam atribuídas à intervenção. A randomização simples é eficaz para amostras grandes (>100 por grupo), mas amostras menores podem exigir randomização em blocos ou estratificada para equilibrar os tamanhos dos grupos e as covariáveis. Quando a randomização não é viável, métodos quasi-randomizados (como baseados em datas ou ordem de inclusão) podem ser utilizados, mas devem ser acompanhados de ajustes multivariados. Além disso, o cegamento e a ocultação da alocação aumentam a validade interna e a reprodutibilidade. A ocultação da alocação (ex.: envelopes lacrados) evita vieses durante a designação dos participantes, enquanto o cegamento reduz vieses de detecção e desempenho. Descrições metodológicas detalhadas em registros de ensaios clínicos e publicações aumentam a confiabilidade e a reprodutibilidade dos estudos, destacando a importância de um planejamento rigoroso e de relatórios transparentes em pesquisas de intervenção. Este artigo revisa os principais conceitos de randomização, cegamento e ocultação de alocação em estudos de intervenção.

Palavras-chave

Randomização; Ocultação de Alocação; Estudos de Intervenção; Redução de Viés; Validade Metodológica

Abstract

Intervention studies require all participants to originate from the same population, with random allocation to intervention groups to ensure comparability. Randomization is crucial for minimizing confounding factors, allowing differences in outcomes to be attributed to the intervention. Simple randomization performs well for large samples (>100 per group), but smaller samples may require block or stratified randomization to balance group sizes and covariates. When randomization isn't feasible, quasi-randomized methods (e.g., based on dates or enrollment order) can help but must compensate with multivariate adjustments. Moreover, blinding and allocation concealment enhance internal validity and reproducibility. Allocation concealment (e.g., sealed envelopes) prevents bias during participant assignment while blinding mitigates detection and performance biases. Precise methodological descriptions in clinical trial registrations and publications enhance study reliability and reproducibility, highlighting the importance of rigorous planning and transparent reporting in intervention research. This article reviews the key concepts of randomization, blinding, and allocation concealment in interventional studies

Keywords

Randomization; Allocation Concealment; Intervention Studies; Bias Reduction; Methodological Validity

References

1 Altman DG, Bland JM. Statistics notes. Treatment allocation in controlled trials: why randomise? BMJ. 1999;318(7192):1209. http://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.318.7192.1209. PMid:10221955.

2 Sacks H, Chalmers TC, Smith H Jr. Randomized versus historical controls for clinical trials. Am J Med. 1982;72(2):233-40. http://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9343(82)90815-4. PMid:7058834.

3 Roberts C, Torgerson D. Understanding controlled trials: randomisation methods in controlled trials. BMJ. 1998;317(7168):1301-10. http://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.317.7168.1301. PMid:9804722.

4 Miola AC, Miot HA. P-value and effect-size in clinical and experimental studies. J Vasc Bras. 2021;20:e20210038. http://doi.org/10.1590/1677-5449.210038. PMid:34267792.

5 Zhao W. Selection bias, allocation concealment and randomization design in clinical trials. Contemp Clin Trials. 2013;36(1):263-5. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.cct.2013.07.005. PMid:23871796.

6 Coelho F No, Araujo WJB, Belczak S, et al. Influence of compression therapy following varicose vein surgery: a prospective randomized study. J Vasc Bras. 2023;22:e20220052. http://doi.org/10.1590/1677-5449.202200522. PMid:37576735.

7 Hulley SB, Cummings SR, Browner WS. Designing clinical research. 3rd ed. New York: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2006.

8 Garcia EL, Pereira AH, Menezes MG, et al. Effects of aerobic and combined training on pain-free walking distance and health-related quality of life in patients with peripheral artery disease: a randomized clinical trial. J Vasc Bras. 2023;22:e20230024. http://doi.org/10.1590/1677-5449.202300242. PMid:37790896.

9 GraphPad [site na Internet]. 2024 [citado 2024 abr 7]. https://www.graphpad.com/quickcalcs/randomize1

10 Research Randomizer [site na Internet]. 2024 [citado 2024 abr 7]. https://www.randomizer.org/

11 Moher D, Hopewell S, Schulz KF, et al. CONSORT 2010 explanation and elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMJ. 2010;340(1):c869. http://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.c869. PMid:20332511.

12 Ference BA, Holmes MV, Smith GD. Using Mendelian randomization to improve the design of randomized trials. Cold Spring Harb Perspect Med. 2021;11(7):a040980. http://doi.org/10.1101/cshperspect.a040980. PMid:33431510.

13 Davey Smith G, Hemani G. Mendelian randomization: genetic anchors for causal inference in epidemiological studies. Hum Mol Genet. 2014;23(R1):R89-98. http://doi.org/10.1093/hmg/ddu328. PMid:25064373.

14 Kang M, Ragan BG, Park JH. Issues in outcomes research: an overview of randomization techniques for clinical trials. J Athl Train. 2008;43(2):215-21. http://doi.org/10.4085/1062-6050-43.2.215. PMid:18345348.

15 Pocock SJ, Simon R. Sequential treatment assignment with balancing for prognostic factors in the controlled clinical trial. Biometrics. 1975;31(1):103-15. http://doi.org/10.2307/2529712. PMid:1100130.

16 Taves DR. Minimization: a new method of assigning patients to treatment and control groups. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 1974;15(5):443-53. http://doi.org/10.1002/cpt1974155443. PMid:4597226.

17 Treasure T, MacRae KD. Minimisation: the platinum standard for trials? Randomisation doesn’t guarantee similarity of groups; minimisation does. BMJ. 1998;317(7155):362-3. http://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.317.7155.362. PMid:9694748.

18 Schulz KF, Grimes DA. Generation of allocation sequences in randomised trials: chance, not choice. Lancet. 2002;359(9305):515-9. http://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(02)07683-3. PMid:11853818.

19 Purssell E, Drey N, Chudleigh J, Creedon S, Gould DJ. The Hawthorne effect on adherence to hand hygiene in patient care. J Hosp Infect. 2020;106(2):311-7. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhin.2020.07.028. PMid:32763330.

20 Chalmers TC, Celano P, Sacks HS, Smith H Jr. Bias in treatment assignment in controlled clinical trials. N Engl J Med. 1983;309(22):1358-61. http://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM198312013092204. PMid:6633598.

21 Forder PM, Gebski VJ, Keech AC. Allocation concealment and blinding: when ignorance is bliss. Med J Aust. 2005;182(2):87-9. http://doi.org/10.5694/j.1326-5377.2005.tb06584.x. PMid:15651970.

22 Berger VW, Do AC. Allocation concealment continues to be misunderstood. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63(4):468-9. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.09.004. PMid:20004551.

23 Pildal J, Chan AW, Hrobjartsson A, Forfang E, Altman DG, Gotzsche PC. Comparison of descriptions of allocation concealment in trial protocols and the published reports: cohort study. BMJ. 2005;330(7499):1049. http://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.38414.422650.8F. PMid:15817527.

24 Schulz KF, Grimes DA. Allocation concealment in randomised trials: defending against deciphering. Lancet. 2002;359(9306):614-8. http://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(02)07750-4. PMid:11867132.

25 Kennedy CE, Fonner VA, Armstrong KA, et al. The Evidence Project risk of bias tool: assessing study rigor for both randomized and non-randomized intervention studies. Syst Rev. 2019;8(1):3. http://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-018-0925-0. PMid:30606262.

26 Deeks JJ, Dinnes J, D’Amico R, et al. Evaluating non-randomised intervention studies. Health Technol Assess. 2003;7(27):iii-x. http://doi.org/10.3310/hta7270. PMid:14499048.

27 Popp L, Schneider S. Attention placebo control in randomized controlled trials of psychosocial interventions: theory and practice. Trials. 2015;16(1):150. http://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-015-0679-0. PMid:25872619.

28 Linde K, Fassler M, Meissner K. Placebo interventions, placebo effects and clinical practice. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2011;366(1572):1905-12. http://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2010.0383. PMid:21576148.

29 Fregni F, Imamura M, Chien HF, et al. Challenges and recommendations for placebo controls in randomized trials in physical and rehabilitation medicine: a report of the international placebo symposium working group. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2010;89(2):160-72. http://doi.org/10.1097/PHM.0b013e3181bc0bbd. PMid:20090428.

30 Homer CS. Using the Zelen design in randomized controlled trials: debates and controversies. J Adv Nurs. 2002;38(2):200-7. http://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2648.2002.02164.x. PMid:11940133.

31 Simon GE, Shortreed SM, DeBar LL. Zelen design clinical trials: why, when, and how. Trials. 2021;22(1):541. http://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-021-05517-w. PMid:34404466.

32 Torgerson DJ, Roland M. Understanding controlled trials: What is Zelen’s design? BMJ. 1998;316(7131):606. http://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.316.7131.606. PMid:9518917.

33 Lai D, Wang D, McGillivray M, Baajour S, Raja AS, He S. Assessing the quality of randomization methods in randomized control trials. Healthc (Amst). 2021;9(4):100570. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.hjdsi.2021.100570. PMid:34343852.


Submitted date:
04/07/2024

Accepted date:
09/02/2024

Sociedade Brasileira de Angiologia e Cirurgia Vascular (SBACV)"> Sociedade Brasileira de Angiologia e Cirurgia Vascular (SBACV)">
67853436a953957d1346a773 jvb Articles
Links & Downloads

J Vasc Bras

Share this page
Page Sections