Quantitative comparison of randomization designs in sequential clinical trials based on treatment balance and allocation randomness

Pharmaceutical Statistics

Volumn 11, Issue 1, 2012, Pages 39-48

  Zhao, Wenle ^a   Weng, Yanqiu ^a   Wu, Qi ^a   Palesch, Yuko ^a  

^a MEDICAL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA   (United States)

Author keywords

allocation randomness; clinical trial; randomization design; treatment imbalance

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; COMPARATIVE STUDY; COMPUTER SIMULATION; CORRELATION COEFFICIENT; MATHEMATICAL MODEL; METHODOLOGY; NONHUMAN; PROBABILITY; PROCESS OPTIMIZATION; QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS; RANDOMIZATION; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; STUDY DESIGN;

ALGORITHMS; COMPUTER SIMULATION; HUMANS; PROBABILITY; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS AS TOPIC; RESEARCH DESIGN; SELECTION BIAS;

EID: 84856510062     PISSN: 15391604     EISSN: 15391612     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/pst.493     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. Friedman LM, Furberg C, DeMets DL,. Fundamentals of Clinical Trials. Springer: New York, 1998.
2. Rosenberger WF, Lachin JM,. NetLibrary Inc. Randomization in Clinical Trials Theory and Practice. Wiley: New York, 2002.
3. Lachin JM,. Properties of simple randomization in clinical trials. Controlled Clinical Trials 1988; 9: 312-326. (Pubitemid 19012637)
4. Buyse M, McEntegart D,. Achieving balance in clinical trials: an unbalanced view from the European regulators. Applied Clinical Trials 2004; 13: 36-40.
5. Hill AB,. The clinical trial. British Medical Bulletin 1951; 71: 278-282.
6. Efron B,. Forcing a sequential experiment to be balanced. Biometrika 1971; 58: 403-417.
7. Wei LJ,. A class of designs for sequential clinical trials. Journal of the American Statistical Association 1977; 72: 382-386.
8. Soares JF, Wu CF,. Some restricted randomization rules in sequential designs. Communications in Statistics-Theory and Methods 1983; 12: 2017-2034.
9. Smith RL,. Sequential treatment allocation using biased coin designs. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B (Methodological) 1984; 46: 519-543.
10. Chen YP,. Biased coin design with imbalance tolerance. Communications in Statistics Stochastic Models 1999; 15: 953-975.
11. Chen YP,. Which design is better? Ehrenfest Urn versus Biased Coin. Advances in Applied Probability 2000; 32: 738-749.
12. Antognini AB,. Extensions of Ehrenfest's urn designs for comparing two treatments. mODa 7 Contributions to Statistics 2004; 21-28.
13. Kundt G,. A new proposal for setting parameter values in restricted randomization methods. Methods of Information in Medicine 2007; 46: 440-449. (Pubitemid 47300361)
14. Antognini AB,. On the speed of convergence of some urn designs for the balanced allocation of two treatments. Metrika 2005; 62: 309-322. (Pubitemid 41436831)
15. Klotz JH,. Maximum entropy constrained balance randomization for clinical trials. Biometrics 1978; 34: 283-287. (Pubitemid 8360274)
16. Matts JP, Lachin JM,. Properties of permuted-block randomization in clinical trials. Controlled Clinical Trials 1988; 9: 327-344. (Pubitemid 19013932)
17. Dupin-Spriet T, Fermanian J, Spriet A,. Quantification of predictability in clinical trials using block randomization. Drug Information Journal 2004; 38: 127-133. (Pubitemid 39243107)
18. Berger VW,. A review of methods for ensuring the comparability of comparison groups in randomized clinical trials. Reviews on Recent Clinical Trials 2006; 1: 81-86.
19. Blackwell D, Hodges JL,. Design for the control of selection bias. Annals of Mathematical Statistics 1957; 28: 449-460.
20. McEntegart DJ,. The pursuit of balance using stratified and dynamic randomization techniques: an overview. Drug Information Journal 2003; 37: 293-308. (Pubitemid 37309319)
21. Berger VW,. Varying the block size does not conceal the allocation. Journal of Critical Care 2006; 21: 229; author reply 229-230. (Pubitemid 43850192)
22. Pond GR, Tang PA, Welch SA, Chen EX,. Trends in the application of dynamic allocation methods in multi-arm cancer clinical trials. Clinical Trials (London, England) 2010; 7: 227-234.
23. Wei LJ,. The adaptive biased coin design for sequential experiments. The Annals of Statistics 1978; 61: 92-100.
24. Wei LJ, Lachin JM,. Properties of the urn randomization in clinical trials. Controlled Clinical Trials 1988; 9: 345-364. (Pubitemid 19012638)
25. McEntegart D,. Letter to the Editor re Berger. Contemporary Clinical Trials 2010; 31 (6): 507.
26. Berger VW,. Selection bias and covariate imbalances in randomized clinical trials. Wiley: New York, 2005.
27. Taves DR,. Minimization: a new method of assigning patients to treatment and control groups. Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics 1974; 15: 443-453.
28. Pocock SJ, Simon R,. Sequential treatment assignment with balancing for prognostic factors in the controlled clinical trial. Biometrics 1975; 31: 103-115.
29. Berger VW, Ivanova A, Knoll MD,. Minimizing predictability while retaining balance through the use of less restrictive randomization procedures. Statistics in Medicine 2003; 22: 3017-3028. (Pubitemid 37160602)
30. Salama I, Ivanova A, Qaqish B,. Efficient generation of constrained block allocation sequences. Statistics in Medicine 2008; 27: 1421-1428. (Pubitemid 351524111)