Evaluation of Imbalance in Stratified Blocked Randomization

Summary

Objectives: If in a clinical trial prognostic factors are known in advance, it is often recommended that randomization of patients should be stratified. The best-known method is permuted-block randomization within strata. But it suffers from the disadvantage that imbalance still occurs in the trial as a whole if there are a large number of strata, or/and the block sizes are too large for the number of patients. The results of Hallstrom and Davis are appropriate for evaluating the risk of such a troubled situation by using two special cases of their general variance formula. But it is merely generally argued for whichever practical situations these special cases are valid. Consequently, additional investigations are required to reveal the conditions for correct application.

Methods: We investigated the range of validity of special cases by performing computer simulations, varying a number of trial characteristics, and discuss the application of results for practical situations.

Results: The validity of special cases is not given in each situation. Depending on block size, a binomial distribution model is valid for a permitted average maximum number of patients per stratum between 36% and 57% of considered block sizes, whereas the uniform distribution model works adequately from at least 70%. In an intermediate range of invalidity, implementation of a simulation study is necessary to compute the probability distribution of differences.

Conclusions: Our results are important if choosing the stratified permuted-block randomization to estimate the risk for an intolerable overall imbalance when planning a trial.

Keywords

Stratified permuted-block randomization - balancing properties

• References

• 1 Lachin JM. Properties of simple randomization in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials 1988; 9 (004) 312-326.
• 2 Matts JP, Lachin JM. Properties of permuted-block randomization in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials 1988; 9 (004) 327-344.
• 3 Efron B. Forcing a sequential experiment to be balanced. Biometrika 1971; 58 (03) 403-417.
• 4 Kundt G. A New Proposal for Setting Parameter Values in Restricted Randomization Methods. Methods Inf Med 2007; 46 (04) 440-449.
• 5 Kundt G. Comparative Evaluation of Balancing Properties of Stratified Randomization Procedures. Methods Inf Med 2009; 48 (02) 129-134.
• 6 European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products (EMEA). ICH Topic E9, Statistical Principles for Clinical Trials. London 1998
• 7 Hallstrom A, Davis K. Imbalance in treatment assignments in stratified blocked randomization. Control Clin Trials 1988; 9 (04) 375-382.
• 8 Kalish LA, Begg CB. Treatment allocation methods in clinical trials: A review. Stat Med 1985; 4 (02) 129-144.
• 9 Pocock SJ. Statistical aspects of clinical trial design. The Statistician 1982; 31 (01) 1-18.
• 10 Thernau TM. How many stratification factors are “too many” to use in a randomization plan?. Control Clin Trials 1993; 14 (02) 98-108.
• 11 http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/results?term=nct00950274.
• 12 Rosenberger WF, Lachin JM. Randomization in Clinical Trials. New York: Wiley; 2002.
• 13 http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/results?term=nct00000504.