| Literature DB >> 24306005 |
Spencer Phillips Hey1, Jonathan Kimmelman.
Abstract
Randomization is the standard means for addressing known and unknown confounders within the patient population in clinical trials. Although random assignment to treatment arms on a 1:1 basis has long been the norm, many 2-armed confirmatory trials now use unequal allocation schemes where the number of patients receiving investigational interventions exceeds those in the comparator arm. In what follows, we offer 3 arguments for why investigators, institutional review boards, and data and safety monitoring boards should exercise caution when planning or reviewing 2-armed confirmatory trials involving unequal allocation ratios. We close by laying out some of the conditions where uneven allocation can be justified ethically.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2013 PMID: 24306005 PMCID: PMC3873626 DOI: 10.1212/01.wnl.0000438226.10353.1c
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Neurology ISSN: 0028-3878 Impact factor: 9.910