A centrally based randomization and allocation procedure should ensure adequate allocation concealment. CHIR-99021 cell line A description of the use of central randomization implies that the randomization sequence was generated at a remote location outside of the study location (e.g. by telephone or web-based system). The use of opaque, serially labelled envelopes should

be considered to achieve successful concealment of allocation. Studies with poor allocation concealment are more likely to lead to between group differences in baseline patient characteristics that may ultimately affect the study’s results. In addition, it has been reported that trials with incomplete or unclear allocation concealment (inadequate or complete lack of description regarding allocation concealment) produced larger estimates of treatment effects on average, by 30–40%, when compared with trials reporting adequate allocation concealment.5 As such, reports of RCTs lacking or providing unclear descriptions of allocation concealment should make one consider the possible implications of such an absence or ambiguity (Table 1). The article you have found has not reported any description of how allocation concealment

was implemented (allocation may or Ridaforolimus cost may not have been concealed; there is just no information in the report). As a result, you cannot have full confidence in the validity of the study results, as you cannot be certain that the processes used fully protected the randomization process. You should consider that the implication of this is that the results of the study may have overestimated the true treatment

effects. Question: Were participants, investigators and/or assessors and data analysts adequately blinded where possible? Blinding refers to the Dipeptidyl peptidase masking of treatment allocation to investigators, participants and those interpreting the data after randomization. Blinding of all of these individuals is ideal whenever it is possible, but it may not be feasible in some studies (e.g. surgical intervention, where it is obvious a surgeon must know what procedure to perform). An alternative method for studies where blinding is not possible is to use a prospective, randomized, open-label, blinded end point trial (PROBE) design in which the main outcomes are assessed by individuals blinded to treatment allocation. A PROBE design maintains blinding of the most critical aspect of a trial (outcome assessment). Nonetheless it may still be associated with differences in the other treatments a participant might receive.6 The sevelamer study is described as an open-label study.1 The authors report that blinding of participants and investigators was not possible as a result of the characteristic chemical odour of calcium acetate used by the control arm and the predictable lowering of serum cholesterol seen in the sevelamer arm. It is further stated that while the interim analyses were performed under blinded conditions, the final analyses were not.