Abstract
Many pharmaceutical industry trials seek to achieve a balanced allocation of treatments over prognostic factors, including center. Much of the literature has discussed the merits of this from the viewpoint of statistical efficiency. This motivation is discussed and evaluated for trials of varying sizes with particular reference to multicenter trials. It is concluded that statistical efficiency for the primary analysis variable will rarely be the main reason for seeking balance and other often more important reasons are outlined. Randomization and dynamic allocation techniques to achieve balance are described and evaluated; these are Zelen’s method, stratified permuted blocks randomization, minimization, urn designs, and optimal allocation techniques. Practical considerations arising from experience with using the techniques are described. Criteria which the practitioner can use to judge which is the most appropriate technique for his particular trial are given; these are balance, predictability, power, implications for analysis, and implications for medication supply. System requirements for the implementation of these techniques are described.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
International Conference un Harmonisation. Guidance on Statistical Principles Tor Clinical Trials. Federal Register. International Confer-ence on Harmonisation; E-9 Document. 1998: Vol.63, 179:49583–49598.
Kernan WN, Viscoli CM, Makuch RW, Brass LM, Horwitz RI. Stratified randomization for clinical tri-als. J Clin Epidemiol. 1999:52(1): 19–26.
Schulz KF, Grimes DA. Allocation concealment in randomised trials: defending against deciphering. Lancet. 2002:359:614–618.
Grizzle JE. A note on stratifying versus complete random assignment in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials. 1982:3:365–368.
Palta M, Amini SB. Magnitude and likelihood of loss resulting from non-stratified randomization. Stat Med. 1982:1:267–275.
Palla M. Investigating maximum power losses in survival studies with nonstratified randomization. Biometrics. 1985:41:497–504.
Peto R, Pike MG, Armitage P et al. Design and analysis of randomized clinical trials requiring prolonged observation of each subject. Br J Can-cer. 1976:34:585.
Simon R. Restricted randomization designs in clinical trials. Biometrics. 1979;35:503–512.
Atkinson AC. Optimum biased-coin designs for sequential treatment allocation with covariate information. Stat Med. 1999:18:1741–1752.
McHugh R, Matts J, Post-stratification in the ran-domized clinical trial. Biometries. 1983:39:217–225.
Green SB, Byar DP. The effect of stratified ran-domization on size and power of statistical tests in clinical trials. J Chron Dis. 1978:31:445–454.
Pocock SJ, Simon R, Sequential treatment assign-ment with balancing for prognostic factors in the controlled clinical trial. Biometrics. 1975:31:103–115.
Signorini DF, Leung O, Simes RJ, Beller E, Gebski VJ. Dynamic balanced randomization for clinical trials. Stat Med. 1993:12:2343–2350.
Wei LJ, Lachin JM. Properties of the urn random-ization in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials. 1988:9:345–364.
Tu D, Shalay K, Pater J, Adjustment of treatment effect for covartales in clinical trials: statistical and regulatory issues. Drug Inf J. 2000:34:511–523.
Lachin JM, Matts JP, Wei LJ. Randomization in clinical trials: conclusions and recommendations. Control Clin Trials, 1988:9:365–374.
Schulz KF, Grimes DA. Generation of allocation sequences in randomised trials: chance, not choice. Lancet 2002:359:515–519.
Atkinson A. Beyond the platinum standard; ran-domisation and balancing covartales in sequential multi-center trials. Henry Stewart Conference on Statistics of Multi-center Trials. January 25, 2002. London.
Cox DR. Randomization and concomitant variables in the design of experinents. In: Kallianpur G, Krishnaiah PR, Ghosh JK eds. Statistics and Probability: Essaya in Honor of Rao CR. Amsterdam, Holland: North Holland Publishing Company: 1982:197–202.
Assman SF, Pocock SJ, Enos LE, Kasten LE. Sub-group analysis and other (mis)uses of baseline data in clinical trials. Lancet. 2000:355:1064–1069.
Cui L, Hung MMJ, Wang SJ, Tsong Y, Issues relat-ing to subgroup analysis in clinical trials. J Biopbarm Stat. 2002:12:347–358
Zelen M. The randomization and stratification of subjects to clinical trials. J Chronic Disease. 1974:27:365–375.
Lachin J. Statistical properties of randomization in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials. 1988:9:289–311.
Simon R. Patient subsets and variation in thera-peutic efficacy. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 1982:14:473–482.
Hallstrom AI, Davis K, Imbalance in treatment as-signments in stratified blocked randomization. Control Clin Trials. 1988:9:375–382.
Schulz KE, Grimes DA. Unequal group sizes in randomised trials: guarding against guessing. Lancet. 2002:359:966–970.
Taves DR. Minimization: a new method of assign-ing subjects to treatment and control groups. Clin Pharmacol Therapeut. 1974:15:443–453.
ISIS-3 Collaborative group. A randomised com-parison of streptokinase vs. tissue plasinogen ac-tivator vs. anistraplase and of aspirin plus heparin vs. aspirin alone among 41299 cases of suspected acute myocardial infarction. Lancet. 1992:339:753–770.
ISIS-4 Collaborative Group. 1S1S-4: A randomized factorial trial assessing early oral captopril, oral mononitrate, and intravenous magnesium sulphate in 58050 subjects with suspected myocardial infarction. Lancet. 1995:349:1413–1421.
Scott NW, McPherson GC, Ramsay CR, Campbell MK. The method of minimization for allocation to clinical trials: a review. Control Clin Trials. 2002:23:662–674.
Freedman LS, While SJ. On the use of Pocock and Simon’s method for balancing treatment numbers over prognostic factors in the controlled clinical trial. Biometrics. 1976:32:691–694.
Zielhuis GA, Straatman H, van’t Hof-Grootenboer AE, [van Lier HJ, Rach GH, van den Broek P. The choice of a balanced allocation method for a clinical trial in otitis media with effusion. Stat Med. 1990:9:237–246.
Begg CB, Iglewicz B, A treatment allocation pro-cedure for sequential clinical trials. Biometrics. 1980:36:81–90.
Therneau TM. How many stratification factors are ‘too many’ to use in a randomization plan. Control Clin Trials. 1993:14:98–108.
Reed JV, Wickham EA. Practical experience of minimization in clinical trials. Pharmaceut Med. 1988:3:349–359.
Chen M-G. IVRS, In: Chow S-C, ed. Encyclopedia of Biopharmaceutical Statistics. New York, NY: Marcel Dekker; 2000:280–287
Frane JW. A method of biased coin randomizalion, its implementation, and its validation. Drug Inf J. 1998:32:423–432.
Akazawa K, Odaka T, Sakamoto M, Ohtsuki S, Shimada M, Kamakura T, Nose Y, A random allocation system with the minimization method for multi-institutional clinical trials. J Med Systems. 1991:15(4):311–319.
Altman DG, Schulz KF, Moher D et al. The revised CONSORT statement for reporting randomized trials: explanation and elaboration. Ann int Med. 2001:134:663–694
Weir CJ, Lees KR. Comparison of stratification and adaptive methods for treatment allocation in an acute stroke clinical trial. Stat Med. 2003:22:705–726.
Wei LJ. An application ofan urn model to the design of sequential controlled clinical trials. J Am Stat Assoc. 1978:73:559–563.
Schouten HJ. Adaptive biased urn randomization in small strata when blinding is impossible. Bio-metrics. 1995:51:1529–1535.
Atkinson AC. Optimum biased coin design for se-quential clinical trial with prognostic factors. Biometrika. 1982:69:61–67.
Cook RD, Weisberg S. Residuals and Influence in Regression. New York, NY: Chapman and Hall; 1982:210.
Dror S, Faraggi D, Reiser B, Dynamic treatment allocation adjusting for prognostic factors for more than two treatments. Biometrics. 1995:51:1338–1343.
Rovers MM, Straatman H, Zeilhaus GA, Ingels K, van der Wilt G-J. Using a balancing procedure in multicenter clinical trials: simulation of patient allocation based on a trial of ventilation tubes for otitis media with effusion in patients. Int J Tech-nol Assess Health Care. 2000:16:276–280.
Efron B, Forcing a sequential experiment to be balanced. Biomctrika. 1971:58:403–417.
Quinaux E, Buyse M, Choosing an optimal treatment allocation method in randomised clinical trials (poster). Presented at the Drug Information Association Annual Meeting. Chicago, IL, 2001.
Ebbutt A, Kay R, McNamara J, Engler J, The analy-sis of trials using a minimization algorithm. In: 20th Anniversary Conference Report. Macclesfield, England: PSI; 1998:12–14.
Ohashi Y. Randomization in cancer clinical trials: permutation test and development of a computer program. Environmental Health Perspectives. 1990:87:13–17.
Kalish LA, Begg CB. The impact of treatment allo-cation procedures on nominal significance levels and bias. Conlrol Clin Trials. 1987:8:121–135.
Dowlman N. Intelligent medication manage-ment—using IVR to optimise the drug supply process, Pharma Manufactur Pack Sourcer. 2001:Summer;24–28.
Dowlman N. The cost benefits of using 1VR sys-tems in the supply chain. Pharma Manufactur Pack Sourcer. 2001;Autumn:74–79.
Byrom B. Using IVRS in clinical trial management. Appl Clin Trials. 2002:10:36–42.
Food and Drug Adminstration. 21 CFR Part 11. Electronic Records; Electronic Signatures. Federal Register. 1997; Vol. 62. 54:13430–13466.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
McEntegart, D.J. The Pursuit of Balance Using Stratified and Dynamic Randomization Techniques: An Overview. Ther Innov Regul Sci 37, 293–308 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1177/009286150303700305
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/009286150303700305