Skip to main content

Table 1 General characteristics of institutional review board (IRB) members by class of perception of unbalanced randomization in randomized controlled trials (RCTs)

From: Heterogeneous perception of the ethical legitimacy of unbalanced randomization by institutional review board members: a clinical vignette-based survey

Characteristics

Total

(n = 148)

Class 1b

(n = 58)

Class 2

(n = 46)

Class 3

(n = 44)

Age, years, mean ± standard deviation

51 ± 11

50 ± 12

54 ± 10

50 ± 12

Gender male

81 (55.5)

37 (64.9)

26 (57.8)

18 (41.9)

Professional background

 Medical/surgical physician

48 (32.7)

23 (40.3)

13 (28.9)

12 (27.3)

 Statistician/epidemiologist

20 (13.6)

7 (12.3)

7 (15.6)

6 (13.6)

 Philosopher/ethicist

13 (8.8)

4 (7.0)

2 (4.4)

7 (15.9)

 Other a

66 (44.9)

23 (40.3)

23 (51.1)

19 (42.2)

Involved in:

 Planning an RCT

93 (62.8)

39 (67.2)

29 (63.0)

25 (56.8)

 Planning an unbalanced RCT

30 (34.9)

7 (18.4)

16 (55.2)

7 (31.8)*

 Approving an unbalanced RCT

74 (54.0)

26 (45.6)

24 (53.3)

24 (54.6)

 Unbalanced randomization raises problems

19 (27.1)

13 (50.0)

3 (12.5)

3 (12.5)*

 Agree to participate in an unbalanced RCT

63 (81.8)

15 (25.9)

25 (54.4)

23 (52.3)*

  1. Data are no. (%) unless indicated
  2. *P < 0.05
  3. aOther professional backgrounds included nurse (n = 7), pharmaceutical scientist (n = 7), sociologist (n = 6), psychologist (n = 5), biologists/chemist (n = 4), educational researcher (n = 3), administrator (n = 3), physiologist (n = 2), lawyer (n = 2), engineer (n = 2), alternative medicine (n = 1), genetics (n = 1), physicist (n = 1), other imprecise backgrounds (“researcher” or “IRB member”, n = 17), and missing data (n = 5)
  4. bClass 1 = skeptics in the ethical justification of using an unbalanced randomization, whatever the reason
  5. Class 2 = believers in the ethical justification of using an unbalanced randomization, whatever the reason
  6. Class 3 = circumstantial believers evoking ethical and cost issues rather than methodological ones