Balancing the Objectives of Statistical Efficiency and Allocation Randomness in Randomized Controlled Trials

IF 1.5 4区 医学 Q3 MATHEMATICAL & COMPUTATIONAL BIOLOGY Statistics in Biopharmaceutical Research Pub Date : 2023-09-20 DOI:10.1080/19466315.2023.2261671
Oleksandr Sverdlov, Yevgen Ryeznik
{"title":"Balancing the Objectives of Statistical Efficiency and Allocation Randomness in Randomized Controlled Trials","authors":"Oleksandr Sverdlov, Yevgen Ryeznik","doi":"10.1080/19466315.2023.2261671","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"AbstractVarious restricted randomization procedures are available to achieve equal (1:1) allocation in a randomized clinical trial. However, for some procedures, there is a nonnegligible probability of imbalance in the final numbers which may result in an underpowered study. It is important to assess such probability at the study planning stage and make adjustments in the design if needed. In this paper, we perform a quantitative assessment of the tradeoff between randomness, balance, and power of restricted randomization designs targeting equal allocation. First, we study the small-sample performance of biased coin designs with known asymptotic properties and identify a design with an excellent balance–randomness tradeoff. Second, we investigate the issue of randomization-induced treatment imbalance and the corresponding risk of an underpowered study. We propose two risk mitigation strategies: increasing the total sample size or fine-tuning the biased coin parameter to obtain the least restrictive randomization procedure that attains the target power with a high, user-defined probability for the given sample size. Additionally, we investigate an approach for finding the most balanced design that satisfies a constraint on the chosen measure of randomness. Our proposed methodology is simple and yet generalizable to more complex settings, such as trials with stratified randomization and multi-arm trials with possibly unequal randomization ratios.Keywords: Biased coin designequal allocationmaximum tolerated imbalancepowerrestricted randomizationvariability in the allocation proportionDisclaimerAs a service to authors and researchers we are providing this version of an accepted manuscript (AM). Copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proofs will be undertaken on this manuscript before final publication of the Version of Record (VoR). During production and pre-press, errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal relate to these versions also. Supplementary MaterialsThe R Markdown document with Julia and R code for performing simulations and summarizing/visualizing the simulation results is available at the journal website.AcknowledgementsThe authors are grateful to the two anonymous reviewers and the journal editors whose comments helped improve this manuscript.Disclosure StatementThe authors have no conflict of interest with regards to the contents presented in this paper.FundingThe author(s) reported there is no funding associated with the work featured in this article.","PeriodicalId":51280,"journal":{"name":"Statistics in Biopharmaceutical Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Statistics in Biopharmaceutical Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/19466315.2023.2261671","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MATHEMATICAL & COMPUTATIONAL BIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

AbstractVarious restricted randomization procedures are available to achieve equal (1:1) allocation in a randomized clinical trial. However, for some procedures, there is a nonnegligible probability of imbalance in the final numbers which may result in an underpowered study. It is important to assess such probability at the study planning stage and make adjustments in the design if needed. In this paper, we perform a quantitative assessment of the tradeoff between randomness, balance, and power of restricted randomization designs targeting equal allocation. First, we study the small-sample performance of biased coin designs with known asymptotic properties and identify a design with an excellent balance–randomness tradeoff. Second, we investigate the issue of randomization-induced treatment imbalance and the corresponding risk of an underpowered study. We propose two risk mitigation strategies: increasing the total sample size or fine-tuning the biased coin parameter to obtain the least restrictive randomization procedure that attains the target power with a high, user-defined probability for the given sample size. Additionally, we investigate an approach for finding the most balanced design that satisfies a constraint on the chosen measure of randomness. Our proposed methodology is simple and yet generalizable to more complex settings, such as trials with stratified randomization and multi-arm trials with possibly unequal randomization ratios.Keywords: Biased coin designequal allocationmaximum tolerated imbalancepowerrestricted randomizationvariability in the allocation proportionDisclaimerAs a service to authors and researchers we are providing this version of an accepted manuscript (AM). Copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proofs will be undertaken on this manuscript before final publication of the Version of Record (VoR). During production and pre-press, errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal relate to these versions also. Supplementary MaterialsThe R Markdown document with Julia and R code for performing simulations and summarizing/visualizing the simulation results is available at the journal website.AcknowledgementsThe authors are grateful to the two anonymous reviewers and the journal editors whose comments helped improve this manuscript.Disclosure StatementThe authors have no conflict of interest with regards to the contents presented in this paper.FundingThe author(s) reported there is no funding associated with the work featured in this article.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
在随机对照试验中平衡统计效率和分配随机性的目标
摘要在随机临床试验中,可采用各种限制性随机化方法来实现均等(1:1)分配。然而,对于某些程序,在最终数字中存在不可忽略的不平衡概率,这可能导致研究不足。在研究计划阶段评估这种可能性并在需要时对设计进行调整是很重要的。在本文中,我们进行了一个定量的评估之间的随机性,平衡和权力的限制随机化设计目标均等分配。首先,我们研究了具有已知渐近性质的有偏硬币设计的小样本性能,并确定了具有良好的平衡-随机性权衡的设计。其次,我们调查了随机诱导的治疗不平衡问题和相应的低强度研究的风险。我们提出了两种风险缓解策略:增加总样本量或微调有偏差的硬币参数,以获得对给定样本量具有高用户定义概率的目标功率的约束最少的随机化过程。此外,我们研究了一种方法来寻找最平衡的设计,满足所选择的随机性度量的约束。我们提出的方法简单,但可推广到更复杂的情况,如分层随机化试验和随机化比例可能不相等的多组试验。关键词:有偏见的硬币设计均等分配最大可容忍的不平衡权力限制随机化分配比例的可变性免责声明作为对作者和研究人员的服务,我们提供此版本的可接受手稿(AM)。在最终出版版本记录(VoR)之前,将对该手稿进行编辑、排版和审查。在制作和印前,可能会发现可能影响内容的错误,所有适用于期刊的法律免责声明也与这些版本有关。在期刊网站上可以找到R Markdown文档,其中包含Julia和R代码,用于执行模拟和总结/可视化模拟结果。作者感谢两位匿名审稿人和期刊编辑,他们的意见有助于改进本文。声明作者与本文所呈现的内容不存在利益冲突。作者报告说,没有与本文所述工作相关的资金。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Statistics in Biopharmaceutical Research
Statistics in Biopharmaceutical Research MATHEMATICAL & COMPUTATIONAL BIOLOGY-STATISTICS & PROBABILITY
CiteScore
3.90
自引率
16.70%
发文量
56
期刊介绍: Statistics in Biopharmaceutical Research ( SBR), publishes articles that focus on the needs of researchers and applied statisticians in biopharmaceutical industries; academic biostatisticians from schools of medicine, veterinary medicine, public health, and pharmacy; statisticians and quantitative analysts working in regulatory agencies (e.g., U.S. Food and Drug Administration and its counterpart in other countries); statisticians with an interest in adopting methodology presented in this journal to their own fields; and nonstatisticians with an interest in applying statistical methods to biopharmaceutical problems. Statistics in Biopharmaceutical Research accepts papers that discuss appropriate statistical methodology and information regarding the use of statistics in all phases of research, development, and practice in the pharmaceutical, biopharmaceutical, device, and diagnostics industries. Articles should focus on the development of novel statistical methods, novel applications of current methods, or the innovative application of statistical principles that can be used by statistical practitioners in these disciplines. Areas of application may include statistical methods for drug discovery, including papers that address issues of multiplicity, sequential trials, adaptive designs, etc.; preclinical and clinical studies; genomics and proteomics; bioassay; biomarkers and surrogate markers; models and analyses of drug history, including pharmacoeconomics, product life cycle, detection of adverse events in clinical studies, and postmarketing risk assessment; regulatory guidelines, including issues of standardization of terminology (e.g., CDISC), tolerance and specification limits related to pharmaceutical practice, and novel methods of drug approval; and detection of adverse events in clinical and toxicological studies. Tutorial articles also are welcome. Articles should include demonstrable evidence of the usefulness of this methodology (presumably by means of an application). The Editorial Board of SBR intends to ensure that the journal continually provides important, useful, and timely information. To accomplish this, the board strives to attract outstanding articles by seeing that each submission receives a careful, thorough, and prompt review. Authors can choose to publish gold open access in this journal.
期刊最新文献
A Basket Trial Design Based on Power Priors Remembering Gregory Campbell (1949-2023): An Accomplished Leader, Mentor, and Biostatistical Innovator Combining Recurrent and Terminal Events Into a Composite Endpoint May Be Problematic Simultaneous Confidence Intervals for Signal Detection and Ascertaining Precision of Adverse Event Rates in Clinical Trials Bayesian shrinkage estimation of credible subgroups for count data with excess zeros
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1