Sentence examples for methods of assignment from inspiring English sources

We included experimental studies (eg, randomized controlled trials), other experimental designs (eg, nonrandomized methods of assignment, controlled before-after studies, and interrupted time series), and observational studies (eg, prospective or retrospective cohort studies, cross-sectional studies, case-control studies, and case reports).

For the 40 postcodes from 1972 (1.6%) and the 1,101 addresses from 1950 (45.0%) that could not be matched by the SAHSU team, the Great Britain Historical GIS team employed manual methods of assignment (13).

Exclusion criteria are: quasi RCTs (non-randomised methods of assignment); studies using other experimental designs (controlled before after studies and interrupted time series); observational studies (prospective/retrospective cohort studies); cross-sectional and case control studies; case reports; and opinion-driven reports (ie, editorials, letters and non-systematic or narrative reviews).

29 41 65 In two quasi-random studies (included post hoc), the authors and the Cochrane editors agreed that the methods of assignment had the desirable characteristics of randomisation and were at no greater risk of bias than other included studies.

In the second stage, the method of assignment to treatment differs between the trial arms.

The method of assignment to the intervention or control group was not described and selection bias cannot be excluded.

This method of assignment was used instead of random assignment because recruitment to previous studies was difficult, given the exclusion criteria and duration of the experiment.

The random method of assignment ignored participants' preferences; however, these preferences were accounted for at the stage of data analysis by generating a match-mismatch (i.e. whether the received treatment was congruent with the preferred treatment) between-subject factor.

We used the Rannala and Mountain (1997) criterion method of assignment based on group allele frequencies and set the threshold to 0.001 (i.e. the sample group fits the reference population with greater than 99% likelihood).

These discrepancies could relate to a number of methodological differences between the studies, including different age ranges (3 years in our study compared with 6 years in Herting et al)., method of assignment of pubertal group/score (self-report pictorial questionnaire versus the Peterson Developmental Scale (Petersen et al., 1988)), and hormone sampling method (blood versus salivary assays).

This method of assignment is an improvement over discarding data for subjects for whom an exact match cannot be made or by assigning these cases to the ZIP code centroid, which may create an artificial cluster of cases in one location and result in nondifferential exposure misclassification (Hurley et al. 2003).