An Alternative Proposal for “Mixed Randomization” by Schulz and Grimes

Summary

Objective: Randomization is an important part of clinical trials. Using permuted-block randomization for forcing equal group sizes potentially harms the unpredictability of treatment assignments. This can allow bias to creep into a trial. As an alternative, Schulz and Grimes suggest a “Mixed randomization” scheme which introduces more complexity to realize randomization. The objective of our research was to work out a model for randomization which is easier to handle than “Mixed randomization”, with an equal level of performance in unpredictability and balance.

Methods: We analyzed a “Mixed randomization” procedure regarding the degree of unpredictability and balancing power and compared performance using permuted-block randomization with very large block size in a worst case scenario. Our work was done by the application of Blackwell-Hodges model for evaluation of the unpredictability of treatment assignments.

Results: Regarding unpredictability, performance of permuted-block randomization with block size b = 36 was very similar to that of “Mixed randomization”. Regarding balancing power it was more favourable than “Mixed randomization”.

Conclusion: Results of Schulz and Grimes are very important as they emphasized that mildly unequal sample sizes of therapy groups don’t cause problems. But the suggested scheme of “Mixed randomization” to a large extent adds complexity and we do not believe that this proposal is very feasible. Basically, we rather recommend the use of only one restricted randomization procedure in the best way. This can be permuted-block randomization with optimum choice of a large block size.

Keywords

Mixed randomization scheme - balancing properties - unpredictability - block size of permuted-block randomization

• References

• 1 Kalish LA, Begg CB. Treatment allocation methods in clinical trials: A review. Stat Med 1985; 4: 129-44.
• 2 Pocock SJ. Allocation of patients to treatment in clinical trials. Biometrics 1979; 35: 183-97.
• 3 Lachin JM, Matts JP, Wei LJ. Randomization in clinical trials: conclusions and recommendations. Control Clin Trials 1988; 9: 365-74.
• 4 Schulz KF, Grimes DA. Unequal group sizes in randomized trials: guarding against guessing. Lancet 2002; 359: 966-70.
• 5 Matts JP, Lachin JM. Properties of permutedblock randomization in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials 1988; 9: 327-44.
• 6 Efron B. Forcing a sequential experiment to be balanced. Biometrika 1971; 58: 403-17.
• 7 Wei LJ. An application of an urn model to the design of sequential controlled clinical trials. J Am Stat Assoc 1978; 73: 559-63.
• 8 Schulz KF, Chalmers I, Grimes DA, Altman DG. Assessing the quality of randomization from reports of controlled trials published in obstetrics and gynecology journals. JAMA 1994; 272: 125-28.
• 9 Lachin JM. Statistical properties of randomization in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials 1988; 9: 289-311.
• 10 Blackwell D, Hodges JL. Design for the control of selection bias. Annals of Mathematical Statistics 1957; 28: 449-60.
• 11 Rosenberger WF, Lachin JM. Randomization in Clinical Trials. Wiley; 2002
• 12 Pahlke F, König IR, Ziegler A. Randomization In Treatment Arms (RITA): Ein Randomisierungs- Programm für klinische Studien. Informatik Biometrie und Epidemiologie in Medizin und Biologie 2004; 35: 1-22.
• 13 Kundt G. Randomisierungsverfahren für kontrollierte klinische Studien. Aachen: Shaker; 2002