Department of Haematology, Cardiff University School of Medicine, Cardiff, UK.
J Evid Based Med. 2009 Aug;2(3):196-204. doi: 10.1111/j.1756-5391.2009.01023.x.
Randomized controlled trials are the standard method for comparing treatments because they avoid the selection bias that might arise if clinicians were free to choose which treatment a patient would receive. In practice, allocation of treatments in randomized controlled trials is often not wholly random with various 'pseudo-randomization' methods, such as minimization or balanced blocks, used to ensure good balance between treatments within potentially important prognostic or predictive subgroups. These methods avoid selection bias so long as full concealment of the next treatment allocation is maintained. There is concern, however, that pseudo-random methods may allow clinicians to predict future treatment allocations from previous allocation history, particularly if allocations are balanced by clinician or center. We investigate here to what extent treatment prediction is possible.
Using computer simulations of minimization and balanced block randomizations, the success rates of various prediction strategies were investigated for varying numbers of stratification variables, including the patient's clinician.
Prediction rates for minimization and balanced block randomization typically exceed 60% when clinician is included as a stratification variable and, under certain circumstances, can exceed 80%. Increasing the number of clinicians and other stratification variables did not greatly reduce the prediction rates. Without clinician as a stratification variable, prediction rates are poor unless few clinicians participate.
Prediction rates are unacceptably high when allocations are balanced by clinician or by center. This could easily lead to selection bias that might suggest spurious, or mask real, treatment effects. Unless treatment is blinded, randomization should not be balanced by clinician (or by center), and clinician-center effects should be allowed for instead by retrospectively stratified analyses.
随机对照试验是比较治疗方法的标准方法,因为它们避免了如果临床医生可以自由选择患者接受哪种治疗可能产生的选择偏差。实际上,随机对照试验中的治疗分配通常不是完全随机的,而是使用各种“伪随机化”方法,如最小化或平衡块,以确保在潜在重要的预后或预测亚组中治疗之间的良好平衡。只要保持下一个治疗分配的完全隐藏,这些方法就可以避免选择偏差。然而,人们担心伪随机方法可能允许临床医生从前一次分配历史中预测未来的治疗分配,特别是如果分配是由临床医生或中心平衡的。我们在这里研究治疗预测的程度。
使用最小化和平衡块随机化的计算机模拟,研究了各种预测策略的成功率,包括不同数量的分层变量,包括患者的临床医生。
当临床医生被用作分层变量时,最小化和平衡块随机化的预测率通常超过 60%,在某些情况下,预测率可以超过 80%。增加临床医生和其他分层变量的数量并不能大大降低预测率。如果不将临床医生作为分层变量,则预测率很差,除非参与的临床医生很少。
当分配由临床医生或中心平衡时,预测率高得不可接受。这可能很容易导致选择偏差,从而暗示虚假或掩盖真实的治疗效果。除非治疗被掩盖,否则不应通过临床医生(或中心)来平衡随机化,而应通过回顾性分层分析来考虑临床医生-中心效应。