Literature DB >> 29869347

A comparative study of restricted randomization procedures for multiarm trials with equal or unequal treatment allocation ratios.

Yevgen Ryeznik1,2, Oleksandr Sverdlov3.   

Abstract

Randomization designs for multiarm clinical trials are increasingly used in practice, especially in phase II dose-ranging studies. Many new methods have been proposed in the literature; however, there is lack of systematic, head-to-head comparison of the competing designs. In this paper, we systematically investigate statistical properties of various restricted randomization procedures for multiarm trials with fixed and possibly unequal allocation ratios. The design operating characteristics include measures of allocation balance, randomness of treatment assignments, variations in the allocation ratio, and statistical characteristics such as type I error rate and power. The results from the current paper should help clinical investigators select an appropriate randomization procedure for their clinical trial. We also provide a web-based R shiny application that can be used to reproduce all results in this paper and run simulations under additional user-defined experimental scenarios.
Copyright © 2018 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Entities:  

Keywords:  allocation ratio preserving; dose ranging; multiarm trial; randomization design; unequal allocation

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29869347     DOI: 10.1002/sim.7817

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Stat Med        ISSN: 0277-6715            Impact factor:   2.373


  4 in total

1.  Implementing Optimal Designs for Dose-Response Studies Through Adaptive Randomization for a Small Population Group.

Authors:  Yevgen Ryeznik; Oleksandr Sverdlov; Andrew C Hooker
Journal:  AAPS J       Date:  2018-07-19       Impact factor: 4.009

2.  Effectiveness of Training Therapists to Deliver An Individualized Mental Health Intervention for Children With ASD in Publicly Funded Mental Health Services: A Cluster Randomized Clinical Trial.

Authors:  Lauren Brookman-Frazee; Scott Roesch; Colby Chlebowski; Mary Baker-Ericzen; William Ganger
Journal:  JAMA Psychiatry       Date:  2019-06-01       Impact factor: 21.596

3.  Including non-concurrent control patients in the analysis of platform trials: is it worth it?

Authors:  Kim May Lee; James Wason
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2020-06-24       Impact factor: 4.615

4.  Statistical consideration when adding new arms to ongoing clinical trials: the potentials and the caveats.

Authors:  Kim May Lee; Louise C Brown; Thomas Jaki; Nigel Stallard; James Wason
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2021-03-10       Impact factor: 2.279

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.