‘Allocation concealment’: the evolution and adoption of a methodological term

Random assignment of individual participants in clinical trials entails two steps: (i) generating an unbiased treatment allocation schedule; and (ii) applying the schedule without foreknowledge of upcoming allocations. These two steps were implicit in the famous randomized trial of streptomycin for pulmonary tuberculosis in 1948, and were recognized explicitly in some early books on controlled trials. However, half a century later, no widely accepted term denoting the process of concealing upcoming allocations had been adopted. In 1983 Thomas Chalmers and colleagues termed that process “randomization blinding,” and showed that blinded randomization and unblinded randomization were associated with differing estimates of treatment effects; however, their terminology was subsequently rarely used. In the mid-1990s we suggested that the term “allocation concealment” would be preferable to “blinded randomization,” particularly to avoid terminology that might be confused with blinding of treatments after random allocation. After controlling for more factors than had been accounted for by Chalmers and colleagues, we demonstrated an association between allocation concealment and estimates of treatment effects. Moreover, as further indication of bias, inadequately concealed trials displayed more heterogeneity than adequately concealed trials. Notably, our modeling and methodological approach to examine the associations between trial quality and estimates of treatment effects has gained recognition and achieved replication. A PubMed search for the term “allocation concealment” between 1972 and 1993 in “any field” yielded no instances, compared with 1471 between 1995 and 2016. Google Scholar found 25 matches before 1994 and over 30,000 matches after. Although the term might still be improved to avoid occasional misconceptions about its meaning, we assume that it has been widely adopted by authors and editors because they find the term useful