Literature DB >> 16226925

Sequential balancing: a simple method for treatment allocation in clinical trials.

George Florimond Borm1, Elizabeth H Hoogendoorn, Martin den Heijer, Gerhard A Zielhuis.   

Abstract

Although minimisation methods have frequently been advocated for treatment allocation in clinical trials, they are not widely used. As this may partly be due to the complexity of the methods, we devised a new and simple minimisation method to balance for prognostic factors, called sequential balancing. Each factor is dealt with sequentially and when a new subject enters the trial, he or she is allocated the treatment that leads to improved balance of the first factor over the treatments. If the balance of the first factor was already satisfactory, then the treatment is allocated that leads to improved balance of the second factor and so on. The algorithm requires no calculations. We simulated a realistic trial and compared the performance of this method to the performance of alternative allocation strategies: the variance minimisation method, simple randomisation and stratification. The sequential balancing method led to better balance than randomisation and stratification. In the case of four factors or less, the performance of the sequential balancing method and the variance minimisation method were comparable and the sequence of the factors was not very relevant. When more factors were introduced, the balance of the sequential method remained comparable with the balance achieved with the variance minimisation method for the first four factors, but it started to decrease from the fifth factor onwards. We conclude that the ease and simplicity of the new method make it an attractive option when balance is required for four factors or less. If there are more than four factors, the sequential balancing method may still be an acceptable option, but the advantage of simplicity has to be weighed against the loss of performance compared to other minimisation methods.

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2005        PMID: 16226925     DOI: 10.1016/j.cct.2005.09.002

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Contemp Clin Trials        ISSN: 1551-7144            Impact factor:   2.226


  8 in total

1.  Comparison of statistical and operational properties of subject randomization procedures for large multicenter clinical trial treating medical emergencies.

Authors:  Wenle Zhao; Yunming Mu; Darren Tayama; Sharon D Yeatts
Journal:  Contemp Clin Trials       Date:  2015-01-29       Impact factor: 2.226

2.  Dynamic randomization and a randomization model for clinical trials data.

Authors:  Lee D Kaiser
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2012-07-05       Impact factor: 2.373

3.  Improving person-centred care in nursing homes through dementia-care mapping: design of a cluster-randomised controlled trial.

Authors:  Geertje van de Ven; Irena Draskovic; Eddy M M Adang; Rogier A R T Donders; Aukje Post; Sytse U Zuidema; Raymond T C M Koopmans; Myrra J F J Vernooij-Dassen
Journal:  BMC Geriatr       Date:  2012-01-03       Impact factor: 3.921

4.  Practical Application of Antidiabetic Efficacy of Lycium barbarum Polysaccharide in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes.

Authors:  Huizhen Cai; Fukang Liu; Pingguo Zuo; Guiling Huang; Zhixiu Song; Tingting Wang; Huixia Lu; Fei Guo; Chao Han; Guiju Sun
Journal:  Med Chem       Date:  2015       Impact factor: 2.745

5.  Challenging students to formulate written questions: a randomized controlled trial to assess learning effects.

Authors:  Marleen Olde Bekkink; A R T Rogier Donders; Jan G Kooloos; Rob Mw de Waal; Dirk J Ruiter
Journal:  BMC Med Educ       Date:  2015-03-21       Impact factor: 2.463

6.  fMRI neurofeedback facilitates anxiety regulation in females with spider phobia.

Authors:  Anna Zilverstand; Bettina Sorger; Pegah Sarkheil; Rainer Goebel
Journal:  Front Behav Neurosci       Date:  2015-06-08       Impact factor: 3.558

7.  fMRI Neurofeedback Training for Increasing Anterior Cingulate Cortex Activation in Adult Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder. An Exploratory Randomized, Single-Blinded Study.

Authors:  Anna Zilverstand; Bettina Sorger; Dorine Slaats-Willemse; Cornelis C Kan; Rainer Goebel; Jan K Buitelaar
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2017-01-26       Impact factor: 3.240

8.  Explicit feedback to enhance the effect of an interim assessment: a cross-over study on learning effect and gender difference.

Authors:  Marleen Olde Bekkink; Rogier Donders; Goos N P van Muijen; Rob M W de Waal; Dirk J Ruiter
Journal:  Perspect Med Educ       Date:  2012-09-27
  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.