Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Early releases
    • Collections
    • Sections
    • Blog
    • Infographics & illustrations
    • Podcasts
    • COVID-19 Articles
    • Obituary notices
  • Authors & Reviewers
    • Overview for authors
    • Submission guidelines
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Forms
    • Editorial process
    • Editorial policies
    • Peer review process
    • Publication fees
    • Reprint requests
    • Open access
    • Patient engagement
  • Members & Subscribers
    • Benefits for CMA Members
    • CPD Credits for Members
    • Subscribe to CMAJ Print
    • Subscription Prices
    • Obituary notices
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • JAMC
    • À propos
    • Numéro en cours
    • Archives
    • Sections
    • Abonnement
    • Alertes
    • Trousse média 2023
    • Avis de décès
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ Open
    • CJS
    • JAMC
    • JPN

User menu

Search

  • Advanced search
CMAJ
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ Open
    • CJS
    • JAMC
    • JPN
CMAJ

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Early releases
    • Collections
    • Sections
    • Blog
    • Infographics & illustrations
    • Podcasts
    • COVID-19 Articles
    • Obituary notices
  • Authors & Reviewers
    • Overview for authors
    • Submission guidelines
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Forms
    • Editorial process
    • Editorial policies
    • Peer review process
    • Publication fees
    • Reprint requests
    • Open access
    • Patient engagement
  • Members & Subscribers
    • Benefits for CMA Members
    • CPD Credits for Members
    • Subscribe to CMAJ Print
    • Subscription Prices
    • Obituary notices
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • JAMC
    • À propos
    • Numéro en cours
    • Archives
    • Sections
    • Abonnement
    • Alertes
    • Trousse média 2023
    • Avis de décès
  • Visit CMAJ on Facebook
  • Follow CMAJ on Twitter
  • Follow CMAJ on Pinterest
  • Follow CMAJ on Youtube
  • Follow CMAJ on Instagram
Review * Synthèse

Randomization in the Canadian National Breast Screening Study: a review for evidence of subversion

J. C. Bailar and B. MacMahon
CMAJ January 15, 1997 156 (2) 193-199;
J. C. Bailar
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
B. MacMahon
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Responses
  • Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

The authors assess the randomization strategy that had been used in the Canadian National Breast Screening Study (NBSS). Document experts at a private investigation and security company were hired to assist in reviewing instances in which names of subjects were altered in the "allocation books" (the basic instrument used to assign, at random, participants to either the mammography or the usual-care arm). The review was restricted to records from 3 NBSS centres where women assigned to the mammography arm had a distinctly higher (not necessarily significant) number of deaths from breast cancer than those assigned to the usual-care arm, and to records from 2 centres where, for limited periods, administrative problems were reported. In most cases the underlying, original name could be identified. The document experts found no evidence of a deliberate attempt to conceal the alterations. A search of the NBSS database for the underlying and superimposed names revealed that only 1 of the women whose name had been deleted or superimpsed died of breast cancer. She was in the mammography arm. The authors' thorough review of ways in which the randomization could have been subverted failed to uncover credible evidence of it. They conclude that even if there had been acts of subversion, they could only have been few in number and, given that there was only 1 death from breast cancer in the group reviewed, the alterations could have had only a trivial effect on the study findings as reported in 1992.

  • Copyright © 1997 by Canadian Medical Association
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

CMAJ
Vol. 156, Issue 2
15 Jan 1997
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author

Article tools

Respond to this article
Download PDF
Article Alerts
To sign up for email alerts or to access your current email alerts, enter your email address below:
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on CMAJ.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Randomization in the Canadian National Breast Screening Study: a review for evidence of subversion
(Your Name) has sent you a message from CMAJ
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the CMAJ web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Randomization in the Canadian National Breast Screening Study: a review for evidence of subversion
J. C. Bailar, B. MacMahon
CMAJ Jan 1997, 156 (2) 193-199;

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
‍ Request Permissions
Share
Randomization in the Canadian National Breast Screening Study: a review for evidence of subversion
J. C. Bailar, B. MacMahon
CMAJ Jan 1997, 156 (2) 193-199;
Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like

Jump to section

  • Article
  • Responses
  • Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • CJS debate: Is mammography useful in average-risk screening for breast cancer?
  • Mammography screening among women aged 40-49 years shows no benefit
  • Preventive health care, 2001 update: screening mammography among women aged 40-49 years at average risk of breast cancer
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Two tick-borne diseases in one: a case report of concurrent babesiosis and Lyme disease in Ontario
  • Tuberculosis: 7. Laboratory aspects of diagnosis
  • A physician-centered intervention to shorten hospital stay: a pilot study
Show more Review * Synthèse

Similar Articles

Collections

  • Topics
    • Cancer: breast

 

View Latest Classified Ads

Content

  • Current issue
  • Past issues
  • Collections
  • Sections
  • Blog
  • Podcasts
  • Alerts
  • RSS
  • Early releases

Information for

  • Advertisers
  • Authors
  • Reviewers
  • CMA Members
  • CPD credits
  • Media
  • Reprint requests
  • Subscribers

About

  • General Information
  • Journal staff
  • Editorial Board
  • Advisory Panels
  • Governance Council
  • Journal Oversight
  • Careers
  • Contact
  • Copyright and Permissions
  • Accessibiity
  • CMA Civility Standards
CMAJ Group

Copyright 2023, CMA Impact Inc. or its licensors. All rights reserved. ISSN 1488-2329 (e) 0820-3946 (p)

All editorial matter in CMAJ represents the opinions of the authors and not necessarily those of the Canadian Medical Association or its subsidiaries.

To receive any of these resources in an accessible format, please contact us at CMAJ Group, 500-1410 Blair Towers Place, Ottawa ON, K1J 9B9; p: 1-888-855-2555; e: cmajgroup@cmaj.ca

Powered by HighWire