The assignment of patients to the different types of treatment was randomized and the randomization was also double-blinded, with neither the researchers nor the respondents knowing what treatment was assigned to them. At the start of each trial, the respondents assigned to each group were similar and baseline characteristics for each respondent were also similar. The baseline characteristic established for the patients included their age, gender, and ethnic origin (Ratner, et.al., 1998). Aside from the allocated treatment, the patients were all treated equally and no other additional procedures or treatments were included for any of the other treatment groups. There were 28 losses in respondents in the course of the study; this represented an acceptable number – less than 20% of the total number of respondents. The respondents were also analysed in the groups where they were randomised. They were analysed and compared to the other groups based on statistical variances and evaluations. This study is very much ideal because the clinicians and the researchers were blinded during the course of their research. Neither of them knew who was receiving what form of treatment. Previous knowledge and perceptions of the possible impact of treatments did not affect the results of the study and the outcome of the treatments (Ratner, et.al., 1998).
The paper of Cauwenberge and Juniper (2000) sought to compare the efficacy, safety and impact of quality of life in seasonal allergic rhinitis patients after treatment with either fexofenadine and loratadine (with placebo) given once a day. The respondents were randomised through the application of appropriate computer techniques. Such randomisation was concealed from the respondents and researchers. The groups were similar at the start of the trial and the baseline characteristics of age, gender, and conditions including nasal congestion were all similar to each other (Cauwenberge &