Literature DB >> 10180369

Unequal randomisation can improve the economic efficiency of clinical trials.

D Torgerson1, M Campbell.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: In the majority of clinical trials patients are randomised equally between treatment groups. This approach maximises statistical power for a given total sample size. The objectives of this paper were to determine if, when research costs between treatments differ, it is more economically efficient to randomise additional patients to the cheaper treatment, and how the optimum randomisation ratio can be estimated.
METHODS: Estimation of the most economically efficient randomisation ratio for four hypothetical clinical trials using cost-effectiveness analysis.
RESULTS: When research costs differ between treatments, and there is no constraint on total sample size, it is always more cost-effective to randomise more patients to the cheaper treatment. For example, a cost ratio between the lesser and more expensive treatment of ten, results in a randomisation ratio of 3.2:1.
CONCLUSIONS: Unequal randomisation ratios should be more widely used as this will achieve optimum statistical power for the lowest expenditure of research resources.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1997        PMID: 10180369     DOI: 10.1177/135581969700200205

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Health Serv Res Policy        ISSN: 1355-8196


  8 in total

1.  Use of unequal randomisation to aid the economic efficiency of clinical trials.

Authors:  D J Torgerson; M K Campbell
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2000-09-23

2.  Randomised controlled trial of calcium and supplementation with cholecalciferol (vitamin D3) for prevention of fractures in primary care.

Authors:  Jill Porthouse; Sarah Cockayne; Christine King; Lucy Saxon; Elizabeth Steele; Terry Aspray; Mike Baverstock; Yvonne Birks; Jo Dumville; Roger Francis; Cynthia Iglesias; Suezann Puffer; Anne Sutcliffe; Ian Watt; David J Torgerson
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2005-04-30

3.  Randomized controlled trial of hip protectors among women living in the community.

Authors:  Yvonne F Birks; Jill Porthouse; Caroline Addie; Karen Loughney; Lucy Saxon; Mike Baverstock; Roger M Francis; David M Reid; Ian Watt; David J Torgerson
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2004-03-03       Impact factor: 4.507

4.  The net effect of alternative allocation ratios on recruitment time and trial cost.

Authors:  Ralitza Vozdolska; Mary Sano; Paul Aisen; Steven D Edland
Journal:  Clin Trials       Date:  2009-04       Impact factor: 2.486

5.  Comparison of three tests of homogeneity of odds ratios in multicenter trials with unequal sample sizes within and among centers.

Authors:  Zahra Bagheri; Seyyed Mohammad Taghi Ayatollahi; Peyman Jafari
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2011-04-26       Impact factor: 4.615

6.  Sequential boundaries approach in clinical trials with unequal allocation ratios.

Authors:  Peyman Jafari; Seyyed Mohammad Taghi Ayatollahi; Javad Behboodian
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2006-01-13       Impact factor: 4.615

7.  Methodological survey of designed uneven randomization trials (DU-RANDOM): a protocol.

Authors:  Darong Wu; Elie A Akl; Gordon H Guyatt; Philip J Devereaux; Romina Brignardello-Petersen; Barbara Prediger; Krupesh Patel; Namrata Patel; Taoying Lu; Yuan Zhang; Maicon Falavigna; Nancy Santesso; Reem A Mustafa; Qi Zhou; Matthias Briel; Holger J Schünemann
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2014-01-23       Impact factor: 2.279

8.  Tocilizumab, Remdesivir, Favipiravir, and Dexamethasone Repurposed for COVID-19: a Comprehensive Clinical and Pharmacovigilant Reassessment.

Authors:  Mina T Kelleni
Journal:  SN Compr Clin Med       Date:  2021-02-19
  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.