Inference following designs which adjust for imbalances in prognostic factors

Clinical Trials

Volumn 10, Issue 4, 2013, Pages 540-551

  Barbáchano, Yolanda ^a   Coad, D Stephen ^b  

^a MEDICINES AND HEALTHCARE PRODUCTS REGULATORY AGENCY   (United Kingdom)

^b QUEEN MARY UNIVERSITY OF LONDON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CLINICAL TRIAL (TOPIC); EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN; HUMAN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROGNOSIS; RANDOMIZATION; SIMULATION; TREATMENT RESPONSE;

ALGORITHMS; ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; CLINICAL TRIALS AS TOPIC; HUMANS; MODELS, STATISTICAL; PROGNOSIS; RESEARCH DESIGN;

EID: 84881075612     PISSN: 17407745     EISSN: 17407753     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1740774513493367     Document Type: Article

References (22)

1. Taves DR. Minimisation: A new method of assigning patients to treatment and control groups. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 1974 ; 15: 443-53
2. Pocock SJ, Simon R. Sequential treatment assignment with balancing for prognostic factors in the controlled clinical trial. Biometrics. 1975 ; 31: 103-15
3. Murday AJ, Hochstitzky A, Mansfield J, et al. A prospective controlled trial of St. Jude versus Starr Edwards aortic and mitral valve prostheses. Ann Thorac Surg. 2003 ; 76: 66-74
4. Efron B. Forcing a sequential experiment to be balanced. Biometrika. 1971 ; 58: 403-17
5. Chen Y-P. The power of Efron's biased coin design. J Stat Plan Inference. 2006 ; 136: 1824-35
6. Statistical principles for clinical trials. International Conference on Harmonisation E9 Expert Working Group. Stat Med. 1999 ; 18: 1905-42
7. Birkett NJ. Adaptive allocation in randomised controlled trials. Control Clin Trials. 1985 ; 6: 146-55
8. Forsythe AB. Validity and power of tests when groups have been balanced for prognostic factors. Comput Stat Data Anal. 1987 ; 5: 193-200
9. Cox DR. A remark on randomisation in clinical trials. Utilitas Mathematica A. 1982 ; 21: 245-52
10. Wei LJ, Smythe RT, Smith RL. K-treatment comparisons with restricted randomisation rules in clinical trials. Ann Stat. 1986 ; 14: 265-74
11. Smith RL. Sequential treatment allocation using biased coin designs. J R Stat Soc Series B Stat Methodol. 1984 ; 46: 519-43
12. Begg CB, Iglewicz B. A treatment allocation procedure for sequential clinical trials. Biometrics. 1980 ; 36: 81-90
13. Atkinson AC. Optimum biased coin designs for sequential clinical trials with prognostic factors. Biometrika. 1982 ; 69: 61-67
14. Ball FG, Smith AFM, Verdinelli I. Biased coin designs with a Bayesian bias. J Stat Plan Inference. 1993 ; 34: 403-21
15. Barbáchano Y, Coad DS, Robinson DR. Predictability of designs which adjust for imbalances in prognostic factors. J Stat Plan Inference. 2008 ; 138: 756-67
16. Silvey SD Optimal Design: An Introduction to the Theory for Parameter Estimation. London: Chapman and Hall ; 1980 :
17. Atkinson AC. The comparison of designs for sequential clinical trials with covariate information. J R Stat Soc Ser A Stat Soc. 2002 ; 165: 349-73
18. Atkinson AC. Optimum biased-coin designs for sequential treatment allocation with covariate information. Stat Med. 1999 ; 18: 1741-52
19. Meggitt SJ, Gray JC, Reynolds NJ. Azathioprine dosed by thiopurine methyltransferase activity for moderate-to-severe atopic eczema: A double-blind, randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2006 ; 367: 839-46
20. Heckman NE. A sequential probability ratio test using a biased coin design. Ann Stat. 1985 ; 13: 789-94
21. Heckman NE. Repeated significance tests with biased coin allocation schemes. Probab Theory Rel. 1986 ; 73: 627-35
22. Barbáchano Y, Coad DS. The use of group sequential tests with designs which adjust for imbalances in prognostic factors. Stat Med. :