Literature DB >> 21335590

Comparison of dynamic block randomization and minimization in randomized trials: a simulation study.

Lan Xiao1, Phillip W Lavori, Sandra R Wilson, Jun Ma.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Minimizing the imbalance of key baseline covariates between treatments is known to be very important to the precision of the estimate of treatment effect in clinical research. Dynamic randomization allocation techniques have been used to achieve balance across multiple baseline characteristics. However, empirical data are limited on how these techniques compare in terms of balance and efficiency. We are motivated by a newly funded randomized controlled trial, in which we have the option of choosing between two methods of randomization at the subject level: (1) randomizing individual subjects consecutively as they are enrolled, using Pocock and Simon's minimization method, and (2) simultaneously randomizing blocks of subjects once all subjects in a block have been enrolled, using a balance algorithm originally developed for cluster randomized trials.
PURPOSE: To compare dynamic block randomization and minimization in terms of balance on baseline covariates and statistical efficiency. Simple randomization was included as a reference.
METHODS: A simulation study using data from a previous randomized controlled trial was conducted to compare balance statistics and the accuracy and power of hypothesis testing among the randomization methods.
RESULTS: Dynamic block randomization consistently produced the best balance and highest power for various sample and treatment effect sizes, even after post-adjustment of the pre-specified baseline covariates in all three methods. Consistent with previous reports, minimization performed better in balance and power than simple randomization; however, the differences were noticeably smaller compared to those between dynamic block randomization and simple randomization. LIMITATIONS: In this simulation study, we considered three sample sizes and two block sizes for a two-arm randomized trial. We assumed no interactions among the multiple baseline covariates. It is necessary to evaluate how the results may vary when the simulation conditions are changed before drawing broader conclusions regarding comparisons between the randomization methods.
CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that dynamic block randomization outperforms minimization with regard to achieving balance and maximizing efficiency. Nevertheless, the differences across the three randomization strategies are modest. The statistical advantages associated with dynamic block randomization need to be considered in relation to the planned sample size and the practical issues for its implementation in deciding the preferred method of randomization for a given trial (e.g., the time required to accrue blocks of subjects of adequate size as balanced against the need to commence intervention/treatment immediately in those randomized to that experimental condition).

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21335590      PMCID: PMC4296975          DOI: 10.1177/1740774510391683

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Trials        ISSN: 1740-7745            Impact factor:   2.486


  14 in total

1.  Balance in cluster randomized trials.

Authors:  G M Raab; I Butcher
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2001-02-15       Impact factor: 2.373

2.  Optimal multivariate matching before randomization.

Authors:  Robert Greevy; Bo Lu; Jeffrey H Silber; Paul Rosenbaum
Journal:  Biostatistics       Date:  2004-04       Impact factor: 5.899

Review 3.  Design and analysis of group-randomized trials: a review of recent practices.

Authors:  Sherri P Varnell; David M Murray; Jessica B Janega; Jonathan L Blitstein
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  2004-03       Impact factor: 9.308

4.  Statistical comparison of random allocation methods in cancer clinical trials.

Authors:  Atsushi Hagino; Chikuma Hamada; Isao Yoshimura; Yasuo Ohashi; Junichi Sakamoto; Hiroaki Nakazato
Journal:  Control Clin Trials       Date:  2004-12

5.  The choice of a balanced allocation method for a clinical trial in otitis media with effusion.

Authors:  G A Zielhuis; H Straatman; A E van 't Hof-Grootenboer; H J van Lier; G H Rach; P van den Broek
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  1990-03       Impact factor: 2.373

Review 6.  Treatment allocation methods in clinical trials: a review.

Authors:  L A Kalish; C B Begg
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  1985 Apr-Jun       Impact factor: 2.373

7.  Sequential treatment assignment with balancing for prognostic factors in the controlled clinical trial.

Authors:  S J Pocock; R Simon
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  1975-03       Impact factor: 2.571

8.  Dynamic treatment allocation adjusting for prognostic factors for more than two treatments.

Authors:  S Dror; D Faraggi; B Reiser
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  1995-12       Impact factor: 2.571

9.  Tightening the clinical trial.

Authors:  J W Tukey
Journal:  Control Clin Trials       Date:  1993-08

10.  The Breathe Easier through Weight Loss Lifestyle (BE WELL) Intervention: a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Jun Ma; Peg Strub; Carlos A Camargo; Lan Xiao; Estela Ayala; Christopher D Gardner; A Sonia Buist; William L Haskell; Phillip W Lavori; Sandra R Wilson
Journal:  BMC Pulm Med       Date:  2010-03-24       Impact factor: 3.317

View more
  8 in total

1.  Behavioral weight loss and physical activity intervention in obese adults with asthma. A randomized trial.

Authors:  Jun Ma; Peg Strub; Lan Xiao; Philip W Lavori; Carlos A Camargo; Sandra R Wilson; Christopher D Gardner; A Sonia Buist; William L Haskell; Nan Lv
Journal:  Ann Am Thorac Soc       Date:  2015-01

2.  Evaluation of a culturally-adapted lifestyle intervention to treat elevated cardiometabolic risk of Latino adults in primary care (Vida Sana): A randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Lisa G Rosas; Nan Lv; Lan Xiao; Megan A Lewis; Patricia Zavella; M Kaye Kramer; Veronica Luna; Jun Ma
Journal:  Contemp Clin Trials       Date:  2016-03-16       Impact factor: 2.226

3.  Effectiveness of multifaceted educational programme to reduce antibiotic dispensing in primary care: practice based randomised controlled trial.

Authors:  Christopher C Butler; Sharon A Simpson; Frank Dunstan; Stephen Rollnick; David Cohen; David Gillespie; Meirion R Evans; M Fasihul Alam; Marie-Jet Bekkers; John Evans; Laurence Moore; Robin Howe; Jamie Hayes; Monika Hare; Kerenza Hood
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2012-02-02

4.  The Electronic CardioMetabolic Program (eCMP) for Patients With Cardiometabolic Risk: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

Authors:  Kristen M J Azar; Suneil Koliwad; Tak Poon; Lan Xiao; Nan Lv; Robert Griggs; Jun Ma
Journal:  J Med Internet Res       Date:  2016-05-27       Impact factor: 5.428

5.  The Shiny Balancer - software and imbalance criteria for optimally balanced treatment allocation in small RCTs and cRCTs.

Authors:  Thomas Grischott
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2018-10-16       Impact factor: 4.615

Review 6.  Allocation techniques for balance at baseline in cluster randomized trials: a methodological review.

Authors:  Noah M Ivers; Ilana J Halperin; Jan Barnsley; Jeremy M Grimshaw; Baiju R Shah; Karen Tu; Ross Upshur; Merrick Zwarenstein
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2012-08-01       Impact factor: 2.279

7.  MACT: a manageable minimization allocation system.

Authors:  Yan Cui; Huaien Bu; Hongwu Wang; Shizhong Liao
Journal:  Comput Math Methods Med       Date:  2014-02-23       Impact factor: 2.238

8.  Different Harmonic Characteristics Were Found at Each Location on TCM Radial Pulse Diagnosis by Spectrum Analysis.

Authors:  Yun-Ning Tsai; Yi-Chia Huang; Sunny Jui-Shan Lin; Shen-Ming Lee; Yung-Yen Cheng; Yu-Hsin Chang; Yi-Chang Su
Journal:  Evid Based Complement Alternat Med       Date:  2018-07-05       Impact factor: 2.629

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.