Balancing continuous and categorical baseline covariates in sequential clinical trials using the area between empirical cumulative distribution functions

Statistics in Medicine

Volumn 31, Issue 18, 2012, Pages 1961-1971

  Lin, Yunzhi ^a   Su, Zheng ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN MADISON   (United States)

^b GENENTECH INC   (United States)

Author keywords

Baseline covariates; Clinical trial; Cumulative distribution function; Imbalance; Minimization; Randomization

Indexed keywords

ACCURACY; ALGORITHM; ANALYTIC METHOD; ARTICLE; BURN; CALCULATION; CLINICAL RESEARCH; CONTROLLED STUDY; INFECTION CONTROL; INFECTION RISK; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; PROGNOSIS; RANDOMIZATION; SCORING SYSTEM; SIMULATION;

BACTERIAL INFECTIONS; BURNS; CLINICAL TRIALS AS TOPIC; COMPUTER SIMULATION; DATA INTERPRETATION, STATISTICAL; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 84864008784     PISSN: 02776715     EISSN: 10970258     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/sim.5363     Document Type: Article

References (16)

1. Lachin JM, Matts JP, Wei LJ. Randomization in clinical trials: conclusions and recommendations. Controlled Clinical Trials 1988; 9:365-374.
2. Taves DR. Minimization: a new method of assigning patients to treatment and control groups. Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics 1974; 15:443-453.
3. Pocock SJ, Simon R. Sequential treatment assignment with balancing for prognostic factors in the controlled clinical trial. Biometrics 1975; 31:103-115.
4. Ciolino J, Zhao W, Martin R, Palesch Y. Quantifying the cost in power of ignoring continuous covariate imbalances in clinical trial randomization. Contemporary Clinical Trials 2011; 32:250-259.
5. Frane JW. A method of biased coin randomization, its implementation, and its validation. Drug Information Journal 1998; 32:423-432.
6. Su Z. Balancing multiple baseline characteristics in randomized clinical trials. Contemporary Clinical Trials 2011; 32:547-550.
7. Endo A, Nagatani F, Hanada C, Yoshimura A. Minimization method for balancing continuous prognostic variables between treatment and control groups using Kullback-Leibler divergence. Contemporary Clinical Trials 2006; 27:420-431.
8. Efron B. Forcing a sequential experiment to be balanced. Biometrika 1971; 58:403-417.
9. Smith RL. Properties of biased coin designs in sequential clinical trials. The Annals of Statistics 1984; 12:1018-1034.
10. Atkinson AC. Optimum biased-coin designs for sequential treatment allocation with covariate information. Statistics in Medicine 1999; 18:1741-1752.
11. Atkinson AC. The distribution of loss in two-treatment biased-coin designs. Biostatistics 2003; 4:179-193.
12. Heritier S, Gebski V, Pillai A. Dynamic balancing randomization in controlled clinical trials. Statistics in Medicine 2005; 24:3729-3741.
13. Atkinson AC. The comparison of designs for sequential clinical trials with covariate information. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A 2002; 165:349-373.
14. Ichida JM, Wassell JT, Keller MD, Ayers LW. Evaluation of protocol change in burn-care management using the Cox proportional hazards model with time-dependent covariates. Statistics in Medicine 1993; 12:301-310.
15. Klein JP, Moeschberger ML. Survival Analysis: Techniques for Censored and Truncated Data. Springer: New York, 1997.
16. Senn S, Anisimov VV, Fedorov VV. Comparisons of minimization and AtkinsonŠs algorithm. Statistics in Medicine 2010; 29:721-730.