Cargando…

Characterizing permuted block randomization as a big stick procedure

There are numerous approaches to randomizing patients to treatment groups in clinical trials. The most popular is permuted block randomization, and a newer and better class, which is gaining in popularity, is the so-called class of MTI procedures, which use a big stick to force the allocation sequen...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Berger, Vance W., Odia, Isoken
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Elsevier 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5935849/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29736448
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.conctc.2016.01.001
_version_ 1783320342470590464
author Berger, Vance W.
Odia, Isoken
author_facet Berger, Vance W.
Odia, Isoken
author_sort Berger, Vance W.
collection PubMed
description There are numerous approaches to randomizing patients to treatment groups in clinical trials. The most popular is permuted block randomization, and a newer and better class, which is gaining in popularity, is the so-called class of MTI procedures, which use a big stick to force the allocation sequence back towards balance when it reaches the MTI (maximally tolerated imbalance). Three prominent members of this class are the aptly named big stick procedure, Chen's procedure, and the maximal procedure. As we shall establish in this article, blocked randomization, though not typically cast as an MTI procedure, does in fact use the big stick as well. We shall argue that its weaknesses, which are well known, arise precisely from its improper use, bordering on outright abuse, of this big stick. Just as rocket powered golf clubs add power to a golf swing, so too does the big stick used by blocked randomization hit with too much power. In addition, the big stick is invoked when it need not be, thereby resulting in the excessive prediction for which permuted blocks are legendary. We bridge the gap between the MTI procedures and block randomization by identifying a new randomization procedure intermediate between the two, namely based on an excessively powerful big stick, but one that is used only when needed. We shall then argue that the MTI procedures are all superior to this intermediate procedure by virtue of using a restrained big stick, and that this intermediate procedure is superior to block randomization by virtue of restraint in when the big stick is invoked. The transitivity property then completes our argument.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5935849
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher Elsevier
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-59358492018-05-07 Characterizing permuted block randomization as a big stick procedure Berger, Vance W. Odia, Isoken Contemp Clin Trials Commun Article There are numerous approaches to randomizing patients to treatment groups in clinical trials. The most popular is permuted block randomization, and a newer and better class, which is gaining in popularity, is the so-called class of MTI procedures, which use a big stick to force the allocation sequence back towards balance when it reaches the MTI (maximally tolerated imbalance). Three prominent members of this class are the aptly named big stick procedure, Chen's procedure, and the maximal procedure. As we shall establish in this article, blocked randomization, though not typically cast as an MTI procedure, does in fact use the big stick as well. We shall argue that its weaknesses, which are well known, arise precisely from its improper use, bordering on outright abuse, of this big stick. Just as rocket powered golf clubs add power to a golf swing, so too does the big stick used by blocked randomization hit with too much power. In addition, the big stick is invoked when it need not be, thereby resulting in the excessive prediction for which permuted blocks are legendary. We bridge the gap between the MTI procedures and block randomization by identifying a new randomization procedure intermediate between the two, namely based on an excessively powerful big stick, but one that is used only when needed. We shall then argue that the MTI procedures are all superior to this intermediate procedure by virtue of using a restrained big stick, and that this intermediate procedure is superior to block randomization by virtue of restraint in when the big stick is invoked. The transitivity property then completes our argument. Elsevier 2016-01-29 /pmc/articles/PMC5935849/ /pubmed/29736448 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.conctc.2016.01.001 Text en http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
spellingShingle Article
Berger, Vance W.
Odia, Isoken
Characterizing permuted block randomization as a big stick procedure
title Characterizing permuted block randomization as a big stick procedure
title_full Characterizing permuted block randomization as a big stick procedure
title_fullStr Characterizing permuted block randomization as a big stick procedure
title_full_unstemmed Characterizing permuted block randomization as a big stick procedure
title_short Characterizing permuted block randomization as a big stick procedure
title_sort characterizing permuted block randomization as a big stick procedure
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5935849/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29736448
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.conctc.2016.01.001
work_keys_str_mv AT bergervancew characterizingpermutedblockrandomizationasabigstickprocedure
AT odiaisoken characterizingpermutedblockrandomizationasabigstickprocedure