Skip to main content
Top
Published in: BMC Medical Research Methodology 1/2017

Open Access 01-12-2017 | Technical advance

ERDO - a framework to select an appropriate randomization procedure for clinical trials

Authors: Ralf-Dieter Hilgers, Diane Uschner, William F. Rosenberger, Nicole Heussen

Published in: BMC Medical Research Methodology | Issue 1/2017

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Randomization is considered to be a key feature to protect against bias in randomized clinical trials. Randomization induces comparability with respect to known and unknown covariates, mitigates selection bias, and provides a basis for inference. Although various randomization procedures have been proposed, no single procedure performs uniformly best. In the design phase of a clinical trial, the scientist has to decide which randomization procedure to use, taking into account the practical setting of the trial with respect to the potential of bias. Less emphasis has been placed on this important design decision than on analysis, and less support has been available to guide the scientist in making this decision.

Methods

We propose a framework that weights the properties of the randomization procedure with respect to practical needs of the research question to be answered by the clinical trial. In particular, the framework assesses the impact of chronological and selection bias on the probability of a type I error. The framework is applied to a case study with a 2-arm parallel group, single center randomized clinical trial with continuous endpoint, with no-interim analysis, 1:1 allocation and no adaptation in the randomization process.

Results

In so doing, we derive scientific arguments for the selection of an appropriate randomization procedure and develop a template which is illustrated in parallel by a case study. Possible extensions are discussed.

Conclusion

The proposed ERDO framework guides the investigator through a template for the choice of a randomization procedure, and provides easy to use tools for the assessment. The barriers for the thorough reporting and assessment of randomization procedures could be further reduced in the future when regulators and pharmaceutical companies employ similar, standardized frameworks for the choice of a randomization procedure.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
2.
go back to reference Rosenberger WF, Lachin J. Randomization in Clinical Trials: Theory and Practice. New York: Wiley; 2002.CrossRef Rosenberger WF, Lachin J. Randomization in Clinical Trials: Theory and Practice. New York: Wiley; 2002.CrossRef
4.
go back to reference Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D, for the CONSORT Group. CONSORT 2010 Statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. PLoS Med. 2010; 7(3):e1000251. PMID: 20352064.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D, for the CONSORT Group. CONSORT 2010 Statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. PLoS Med. 2010; 7(3):e1000251. PMID: 20352064.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
5.
go back to reference Kahan BC, Morris TP. Reporting and analysis of trials using stratified randomisation in leading medical journals: review and reanalysis. BMJ. 2012; Sep 14:345:e5840. doi:10.1136/bmj.e5840. Kahan BC, Morris TP. Reporting and analysis of trials using stratified randomisation in leading medical journals: review and reanalysis. BMJ. 2012; Sep 14:345:e5840. doi:10.​1136/​bmj.​e5840.
6.
go back to reference Proschan M. Influence of selection bias on type I error rate under random permuted block designs. Stat Sin. 1994; 4:219–31. Proschan M. Influence of selection bias on type I error rate under random permuted block designs. Stat Sin. 1994; 4:219–31.
7.
go back to reference Kennes LN, Cramer E, Hilgers RD, Heussen N. The impact of selection bias on test decisions in randomized clinical trials. Stat Med. 2011; 30:2573–81. doi:10.1002/sim.4279.PubMed Kennes LN, Cramer E, Hilgers RD, Heussen N. The impact of selection bias on test decisions in randomized clinical trials. Stat Med. 2011; 30:2573–81. doi:10.​1002/​sim.​4279.PubMed
9.
go back to reference Rückbeil MV, Hilgers RD, Heussen N. Assessing the impact of selection bias on test decisions in trials with time-to-event outcome. Stat Med. 2011; 36:2656–68. doi:10.1002/sim.7299.CrossRef Rückbeil MV, Hilgers RD, Heussen N. Assessing the impact of selection bias on test decisions in trials with time-to-event outcome. Stat Med. 2011; 36:2656–68. doi:10.​1002/​sim.​7299.CrossRef
11.
go back to reference Blackwell D, Hodges J. Design for the control of selection bias. Ann Math Stat. 1957; 25:449–60.CrossRef Blackwell D, Hodges J. Design for the control of selection bias. Ann Math Stat. 1957; 25:449–60.CrossRef
12.
go back to reference Berger VW. Selection Bias and Covariate Imbalances in randomized Clinical Trials. Chichester: Wiley; 2005.CrossRef Berger VW. Selection Bias and Covariate Imbalances in randomized Clinical Trials. Chichester: Wiley; 2005.CrossRef
14.
go back to reference Altman DG, Royston JP. The hidden effect of time. Methods Inf Med. 1988; 7:629–37. PMID: 3043621. Altman DG, Royston JP. The hidden effect of time. Methods Inf Med. 1988; 7:629–37. PMID: 3043621.
17.
go back to reference Heinrich H, Bartz-Schmidt KU, Bornfeld N, Weiss C, Hilgers RD, Foerster MH. Scleral Buckling versus Primary Vitrectomy in Rhegmatogenous Retinal Detachment Study Group. Scleral Buckling versus Primary Vitrectomy in Rhegmatogenous Retinal Detachment : A Prospective Randomized Multicenter Clinical Study Ophthalmology. 2007; 12:2142–54. doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2007.09.013. Heinrich H, Bartz-Schmidt KU, Bornfeld N, Weiss C, Hilgers RD, Foerster MH. Scleral Buckling versus Primary Vitrectomy in Rhegmatogenous Retinal Detachment Study Group. Scleral Buckling versus Primary Vitrectomy in Rhegmatogenous Retinal Detachment : A Prospective Randomized Multicenter Clinical Study Ophthalmology. 2007; 12:2142–54. doi:10.​1016/​j.​ophtha.​2007.​09.​013.
22.
go back to reference Efron B. Forcing a sequential experiment to be balanced. Biometrika. 1971; 58:403–17.CrossRef Efron B. Forcing a sequential experiment to be balanced. Biometrika. 1971; 58:403–17.CrossRef
23.
go back to reference Berger VW, Ivanova A, Knoll DM. Minimizing Predictability while Retaining Balance through the Use of Less Restrictive Randomization Procedures. Stat Med. 2003; 22(19):3017–28. doi:10.1002/sim.1538.CrossRefPubMed Berger VW, Ivanova A, Knoll DM. Minimizing Predictability while Retaining Balance through the Use of Less Restrictive Randomization Procedures. Stat Med. 2003; 22(19):3017–28. doi:10.​1002/​sim.​1538.CrossRefPubMed
25.
go back to reference Soares JF, Wu CFJ. Some restricted randomization rules in sequential designs. Commun Stat Theory Methods. 1982; 12:2017–34.CrossRef Soares JF, Wu CFJ. Some restricted randomization rules in sequential designs. Commun Stat Theory Methods. 1982; 12:2017–34.CrossRef
26.
go back to reference Chen YP. Biased coin design with imbalance tolerance. Commun Stat Stoch Model. 1999; 15:953–75.CrossRef Chen YP. Biased coin design with imbalance tolerance. Commun Stat Stoch Model. 1999; 15:953–75.CrossRef
29.
go back to reference Atkinson A. Minimizing predictability while retaining balance through the use of less restrictive randomization procedures. Stat Med. 2003; 22:3017–28. doi:10.1002/sim.1538.CrossRef Atkinson A. Minimizing predictability while retaining balance through the use of less restrictive randomization procedures. Stat Med. 2003; 22:3017–28. doi:10.​1002/​sim.​1538.CrossRef
30.
go back to reference Schindler D. Assessment of Randomization Procedures in the Presence of Selection and Chronological Bias. PhD Thesis, University of Dortmund. Germany; 2016. Schindler D. Assessment of Randomization Procedures in the Presence of Selection and Chronological Bias. PhD Thesis, University of Dortmund. Germany; 2016.
31.
go back to reference Langer S. The modified distribution of the t-test statistic under the influence of selection bias based on random allocation rule. Master Thesis, RWTH Aachen University. Germany; 2014. Langer S. The modified distribution of the t-test statistic under the influence of selection bias based on random allocation rule. Master Thesis, RWTH Aachen University. Germany; 2014.
32.
go back to reference Balakrishnan N, Kotz S, Johnson NL. Continuous univariate distributions Volume 2. New York: Wiley; 1995. Balakrishnan N, Kotz S, Johnson NL. Continuous univariate distributions Volume 2. New York: Wiley; 1995.
33.
go back to reference Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D, for the CONSORTGroup. CONSORT 2010 Statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. PLoS Med. 2010; 7(3):e1000251. PMID: 20352064.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D, for the CONSORTGroup. CONSORT 2010 Statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. PLoS Med. 2010; 7(3):e1000251. PMID: 20352064.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
34.
go back to reference Derringer GC, Suich R. Simultaneous optimization of several response variables. J Qual Technol. 1980; 12:214–9. Derringer GC, Suich R. Simultaneous optimization of several response variables. J Qual Technol. 1980; 12:214–9.
Metadata
Title
ERDO - a framework to select an appropriate randomization procedure for clinical trials
Authors
Ralf-Dieter Hilgers
Diane Uschner
William F. Rosenberger
Nicole Heussen
Publication date
01-12-2017
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology / Issue 1/2017
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2288
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-017-0428-z

Other articles of this Issue 1/2017

BMC Medical Research Methodology 1/2017 Go to the issue