A New Proposal for Setting Parameter Values in Restricted Randomization Methods

Summary

Objectives: Complete randomization could result in an undesirable imbalance in the number of patients assigned to each treatment, especially in small trials. Therefore, a variety of restricted randomization procedures has been developed. By varying parameters it is possible to appropriately modify the balancing characteristics of these designs. However, there is little information on what are sensible choices for the parameters. Therefore, we suggest a new method for suitable determination of parameter values of restricted randomization rules.

Methods: For restriction to be effective, it need not yield exact equality. As the reliability of a test is not very sensitive to slight deviations from equal sample sizes we define that a given maximum tolerable imbalance d can be achieved or exceeded with a given probability p*. By using this condition, parameter values of restricted procedures are determinable.

Results: For permuted-block, biased-coin, urn, and big-stick randomization we investigated the impact of parameters on balancing properties. For different extents of restriction and by using the submitted condition, the values of parameters to be chosen are determined.

Conclusions: Up to now choice of parameter values has often occurred at random. Now it is possible to determine values of parameters by specifying the tolerable degree of imbalance and the risk to be worse. As a consequence restriction will, as much as possible, not be imposed and not imposed more than necessary in order to preserve the intrinsic quality of randomization.

Keywords

Unstratified randomization - balancing properties - parameter values of restricted procedures

• References

• 1 Kalish LA, Begg CB. Treatment allocation methods in clinical trials: A review. Stat Med 1985; 04: 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; 09: 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 permuted-block randomization in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials 1988; 09: 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 Soares JF, Wu CFJ. Some restricted randomization rules in sequential designs. Comm Statist Theory Methods 1983; 17: 2017-34.
• 9 Lachin JM. Statistical properties of randomization in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials 1988; 09: 289-311.
• 10 Kundt G. An alternative proposal for “Mixed randomization” by Schulz and Grimes. Methods Inf Med 2005; 44 (04) 572-6.
• 11 Cox DR, Miller HD. The theory of stochastic processes. London: 1965.
• 12 Wei LJ. The adaptive biased coin design for sequential experiments. Ann Statist 1978; 06: 92-100.
• 13 Rosenberger WF, Lachin JM. Randomization in clinical trials. Wiley; 2002.
• 14 Wei LJ. A class of designs for sequential clinical trials. JAm Stat Assoc 1977; 72: 382-6.
• 15 Smith RL. Sequential treatment allocation using biased coins designs. J Royal Statist Soc Series Β 1984; 46: 519-43.
• 16 Wei LJ, Lachin JM. Properties of the urn randomization in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials 1988; 09: 345-64.
• 17 Moher D, Schulz KF, Altman DG, Lepage L. The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomized trials. Lancet 2001; 357: 1191-4.