Follow us
Publications Commentary Research People Events News Resources and Videos About IFS
Home Publications ‘Randomisation bias’ in the medical literature: a review

‘Randomisation bias’ in the medical literature: a review

IFS Working Paper W16/23

Randomised controlled or clinical trials (RCTs) are generally viewed as the most reliable method to draw causal inference as to the effects of a treatment, as they should guarantee that the individuals being compared differ only in terms of their exposure to the treatment of interest. This ‘gold standard’ result however hinges on the requirement that the randomisation device determines the random allocation of individuals to the treatment without affecting any other element of the causal model. This ‘no randomisation bias’ assumption is generally untestable but if violated would undermine the causal inference emerging from an RCT, both in terms of its internal validity and in terms of its relevance for policy purposes. This paper offers a concise review of how the medical literature identifies and deals with such issues.

More on this topic

IFS Working Paper WP19/30
Collective models have become the go-to framework for intra-household allocations.
Cemmap Working Paper CWP51/19
In an important class of econometric problems, researchers select a target parameter by maximizing the Euclidean norm of a data-dependent vector.
IFS Working Paper W19/16
Researchers are often interested in the relationship between two variables, with no single data set containing both. For example, surveys on income and wealth are often missing consumption data.
Slides and software used to introduce the study of inter-temporal life-cycle models of consumption and savings and support the development of code to solve these type of problems numerically.
We present a method to estimate preferences in the presence of unobserved choice set heterogeneity.