Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Reporting and communication of randomisation procedures is suboptimal in veterinary trials
  1. N. Di Girolamo, DMV, MSc(EBHC), PhD, DECZM(HERP)1,
  2. M. A. Giuffrida, VMD, MSCE, DACVS2,
  3. A. L. Winter, BVSc(Hons), DACVS3 and
  4. R. Meursinge Reynders, DDS, MS, MSc (EBHC), PhD4
  1. 1 EBMVet, Via Sigismondo Trecchi, 20, Cremona CR 26100, Italy
  2. 2 University of California Davis, Surgical & Radiological Sciences, Davis, California, USA
  3. 3 American Veterinary Medical Association, 1931 N. Meacham Rd, Suite 100, Schaumburg, Illinois 60173, USA
  4. 4 Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
  1. Email for correspondence: nicoladiggi{at}


To evaluate randomisation mechanisms in the veterinary literature, all trials defined as ‘randomised’ were extracted from five leading veterinary journals for the year 2013. Three blinded investigators evaluated (1) if the random sequence generation was actually non-random, and (2) whether method (CONSORT item 8A) and (3) type of randomisation (CONSORT item 8B) were reported. Trialists were contacted via email to establish (1) willingness to respond to questions on randomisation procedures, (2) whether reporting of randomisation improved following a suggestion to use the CONSORT 2010 guideline. Seven per cent ((95 per cent CI 2 to 12 per cent); 8/114) of the trials defined as ‘randomised’ explicitly used methods that are considered non-random. Almost half of the trials (49 per cent (40 to 59 per cent); 52/106) did not report any mechanism of randomisation. Only 13 trials (12.3 per cent (6 to 19 per cent); 13/106) reported both items. 39 of 114 (34.2 per cent) trialists contacted were willing to respond to further questions on randomisation mechanisms; 4 (3.5 per cent) trialists were unwilling and 71 (62.3 per cent) trialists did not respond. Email correspondence resulted in a mean clarification of 0.7 items (95 per cent CI 0.4 to 1.0) for the 15 trials for trialists that replied. Improved adherence to CONSORT guidelines and trialists communication is imperative to increase the quality of published evidence in veterinary medicine and to reduce research waste.

  • Clinical trials
  • randomised controlled trials
  • methodology
  • clinical epidemiology
  • Evidence-based medicine
  • randomisation
View Full Text

Statistics from

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.