It totally is random allocation, it's just a silly, inefficient, unnecessarily risky, and complicated way of randomizing. Allocation concealment is also not a necessary requirement of randomization. It's usually a (big) positive, but not in all cases.
Sorry, I should've said potential bias. It's impossible to know what bias may have occurred, which I'd argue is also a weakness. At least in cohort studies we have a good idea of the major biases!
-
-
We might be looking at very different cohort studies here, but I don't think I agree with that assertion either. There is also a difference between not having any reason to believe there is bias, and (not) knowing what biases may exist.
-
Put another way, I'd take this weirdly randomized n=43 person RCT (assuming no other major issues, which is admittedly a big assumption) over an otherwise similar n=43 cohort study basically any day.
- Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.