Balance of group sizes in randomized controlled trials published in American Psychological Association journals.

Mara Cañedo-Ayala · Danielle Brittany Rice · Matthew J. Chiovitti · Brett D. Thombs

8 citations0/0 files storedHealth Psychology

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Meta-analysis and systematic reviews Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials Psychology Research and Bibliometrics

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: We evaluated whether sample size differences between arms of two-arm parallel group randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in American Psychological Association (APA)-affiliated journals were consistently smaller than expected by chance with simple randomization. METHOD: We searched PsycINFO for two-arm parallel group RCTs in APA-affiliated journals published January 2007 to September 2017 that used individual randomization (1:1 allocation ratio), reported the number of participants randomized, and did not describe employing restrictive randomization (e.g., blocking). We queried authors because randomization processes were often not described in articles, and we conducted a post hoc logistic regression analysis to attempt to identify factors associated with overly balanced groups. RESULTS: ≤ 100); greater balance may be more common in higher impact journals, though this was not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: Education is needed to ensure that randomization procedures are implemented as intended and fully and accurately reported and that balanced group sample sizes are not understood as an indicator of trial quality. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 8 citations exist upstream.

References

2009Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA Statement.2009Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement 2010CONSORT 2010 Statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials 1995Empirical evidence of bias. Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials 2001The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomised trials 2012Measuring the Prevalence of Questionable Research Practices With Incentives for Truth Telling 2014Publication bias in the social sciences: Unlocking the file drawer 2018Journal article reporting standards for quantitative research in psychology: The APA Publications and Communications Board task force report.

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.