Kalish L A, Harrington D P
Department of Biostatistics, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts 02115.
Biometrics. 1988 Sep;44(3):815-21.
We assess the efficiency of balanced treatment allocation methods in clinical trials for comparing treatments with respect to survival. We compare optimal designs for each of three standard survival analysis techniques (maximum partial likelihood estimation, log-rank test, exponential regression) with balanced designs, over a range of hypothetical trials. Although balanced designs are not optimal, we find them to be very efficient. In view of the high efficiency demonstrated in this and in a previous paper (Begg and Kalish, 1984, Biometrics 40, 409-420), and practical difficulties in implementing an optimal design, we recommend the use of balanced allocation methods in practice.
我们评估了在比较治疗方案生存率的临床试验中,平衡治疗分配方法的效率。我们在一系列假设试验中,将三种标准生存分析技术(最大偏似然估计、对数秩检验、指数回归)各自的最优设计与平衡设计进行了比较。尽管平衡设计并非最优,但我们发现它们效率很高。鉴于本文以及之前一篇论文(贝格和卡利什,1984年,《生物统计学》40卷,409 - 420页)所展示的高效率,以及实施最优设计存在的实际困难,我们建议在实际中使用平衡分配方法。