Literature DB >> 16389910

Quantifying the magnitude of baseline covariate imbalances resulting from selection bias in randomized clinical trials.

Vance W Berger1.   

Abstract

Selection bias is most common in observational studies, when patients select their own treatments or treatments are assigned based on patient characteristics, such as disease severity. This first-order selection bias, as we call it, is eliminated by randomization, but there is residual selection bias that may occur even in randomized trials which occurs when, subconsciously or otherwise, an investigator uses advance knowledge of upcoming treatment allocations as the basis for deciding whom to enroll. For example, patients more likely to respond may be preferentially enrolled when the active treatment is due to be allocated, and patients less likely to respond may be enrolled when the control group is due to be allocated. If the upcoming allocations can be observed in their entirety, then we will call the resulting selection bias second-order selection bias. Allocation concealment minimizes the ability to observe upcoming allocations, yet upcoming allocations may still be predicted (imperfectly), or even determined with certainty, if at least some of the previous allocations are known, and if restrictions (such as randomized blocks) were placed on the randomization. This mechanism, based on prediction but not observation of upcoming allocations, is the third-order selection bias that is controlled by perfectly successful masking, but without perfect masking is not controlled even by the combination of advance randomization and allocation concealment. Our purpose is to quantify the magnitude of baseline imbalance that can result from third-order selection bias when the randomized block procedure is used. The smaller the block sizes, the more accurately one can predict future treatment assignments in the same block as known previous assignments, so this magnitude will depend on the block size, as well as on the level of certainty about upcoming allocations required to bias the patient selection. We find that a binary covariate can, on average, be up to 50% unbalanced by third-order selection bias.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 16389910     DOI: 10.1002/bimj.200410106

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Biom J        ISSN: 0323-3847            Impact factor:   2.207


  14 in total

1.  A simplified formula for quantification of the probability of deterministic assignments in permuted block randomization.

Authors:  Wenle Zhao; Yanqiu Weng
Journal:  J Stat Plan Inference       Date:  2011-01-01       Impact factor: 1.111

2.  DEPOSEIN: Take with a grain of salt.

Authors:  Akhil Shivaprasad; Prashant Rai; Bhanu Gogia; Ivo W Tremont-Lukats
Journal:  Neuro Oncol       Date:  2020-11-26       Impact factor: 12.300

3.  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

Review 4.  Recommendations for the Design and Analysis of Treatment Trials for Alcohol Use Disorders.

Authors:  Katie Witkiewitz; John W Finney; Alex H S Harris; Daniel R Kivlahan; Henry R Kranzler
Journal:  Alcohol Clin Exp Res       Date:  2015-08-06       Impact factor: 3.455

Review 5.  Risk of selection bias in randomised trials.

Authors:  Brennan C Kahan; Sunita Rehal; Suzie Cro
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2015-09-10       Impact factor: 2.279

6.  Assessing the impact of selection bias on test decisions in trials with a time-to-event outcome.

Authors:  Marcia Viviane Rückbeil; Ralf-Dieter Hilgers; Nicole Heussen
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2017-04-17       Impact factor: 2.373

7.  Balance algorithm for cluster randomized trials.

Authors:  Ben R Carter; Kerenza Hood
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2008-10-09       Impact factor: 4.615

8.  The impact of selection bias in randomized multi-arm parallel group clinical trials.

Authors:  Diane Uschner; Ralf-Dieter Hilgers; Nicole Heussen
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-01-31       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  The effectiveness of manual therapy in treating cervicogenic dizziness: a systematic review.

Authors:  Khalid Yaseen; Paul Hendrick; Ayah Ismail; Mohannad Felemban; Mansour Abdullah Alshehri
Journal:  J Phys Ther Sci       Date:  2018-01-27

Review 10.  Methodological Aspects in Studies Based on Clinical Routine Data.

Authors:  Lieven Nils Kennes
Journal:  Adv Ther       Date:  2017-09-12       Impact factor: 3.845

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.