Lauzon Steven D, Ramakrishnan Viswanathan, Nietert Paul J, Ciolino Jody D, Hill Michael D, Zhao Wenle
Department of Public Health Sciences, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, South Carolina, USA.
Department of Preventive Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois, USA.
Stat Med. 2020 Aug 30;39(19):2506-2517. doi: 10.1002/sim.8552. Epub 2020 May 4.
When the number of baseline covariates whose imbalance needs to be controlled in a sequential randomized controlled trial is large, minimization is the most commonly used method for randomizing treatment assignments. The lack of allocation randomness associated with the minimization method has been the source of controversy, and the need to reduce even minor imbalances inherent in the minimization method has been challenged. The minimal sufficient balance (MSB) method is an alternative to the minimization method. It prevents serious imbalance from a large number of covariates while maintaining a high level of allocation randomness. In this study, the two treatment allocation methods are compared with regards to the effectiveness of balancing covariates across treatment arms and allocation randomness in equal allocation clinical trials. The MSB method proves to be equal or superior in both respects. In addition, type I error rate is preserved in analyses for both balancing methods, when using a binary endpoint.
在序贯随机对照试验中,当需要控制不平衡的基线协变量数量较多时,最小化是最常用的治疗分配随机化方法。与最小化方法相关的分配缺乏随机性一直是争议的根源,并且减少最小化方法中固有的即使是微小不平衡的必要性也受到了挑战。最小充分平衡(MSB)方法是最小化方法的替代方法。它在保持高水平分配随机性的同时,防止大量协变量出现严重不平衡。在本研究中,比较了两种治疗分配方法在平衡各治疗组协变量有效性和等分配临床试验中的分配随机性方面的情况。结果证明,MSB方法在这两个方面都相等或更优。此外,当使用二元终点时,两种平衡方法在分析中均保持了I型错误率。