Understanding an impact of patient enrollment pattern on predictability of central (unstratified) randomization in a multi-center clinical trial.
big stick design
multi‐center clinical trial
permuted block randomization
selection bias
Journal
Statistics in medicine
ISSN: 1097-0258
Titre abrégé: Stat Med
Pays: England
ID NLM: 8215016
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
03 Jun 2024
03 Jun 2024
Historique:
revised:
01
04
2024
received:
09
01
2024
accepted:
07
05
2024
medline:
4
6
2024
pubmed:
4
6
2024
entrez:
4
6
2024
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
In a multi-center randomized controlled trial (RCT) with competitive recruitment, eligible patients are enrolled sequentially by different study centers and are randomized to treatment groups using the chosen randomization method. Given the stochastic nature of the recruitment process, some centers may enroll more patients than others, and in some instances, a center may enroll multiple patients in a row, for example, on a given day. If the study is open-label, the investigators might be able to make intelligent guesses on upcoming treatment assignments in the randomization sequence, even if the trial is centrally randomized and not stratified by center. In this paper, we use enrollment data inspired by a real multi-center RCT to quantify the susceptibility of two restricted randomization procedures, the permuted block design and the big stick design, to selection bias under the convergence strategy of Blackwell and Hodges (1957) applied at the center level. We provide simulation evidence that the expected proportion of correct guesses may be greater than 50% (i.e., an increased risk of selection bias) and depends on the chosen randomization method and the number of study patients recruited by a given center that takes consecutive positions on the central allocation schedule. We propose some strategies for ensuring stronger encryption of the randomization sequence to mitigate the risk of selection bias.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Informations de copyright
© 2024 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Références
Matts J, Lachin L. Properties of permuted‐block randomization in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials. 1988;9:327‐344.
Anisimov V. Predictive Modelling of Recruitment and Drug Supply in Multicenter Clinical Trials. Proceedings of the Joint Statistical Meetings. Washington DC: JSM. 2009 1248‐1259.
Anisimov V. Drug supply modelling in clinical trials (statistical methodology). Pharmaceut Outsourc. 2010;11:17‐20.
Sverdlov O, Ryeznik Y, Anisimov V, et al. Selecting a randomization method for a multi‐center clinical trial with stochastic recruitment considerations. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2024;24(52):1‐23.
Anisimov V, Fedorov V. Modeling, prediction and adaptive adjustment of recruitment in multicentre trials. Stat Med. 2007;26(27):4958‐4975.
Blackwell D, Hodges J. Design for the control of selection bias. Ann Math Stat. 1957;28(2):449‐460.
Rosenberger W, Lachin J. Randomization in Clinical Trials: Theory and Practice. 2nd ed. New York: Wiley; 2015.
Soares J, Wu C. Some restricted randomization rules in sequential designs. Commun Stat Theory Methods. 1983;12(17):2017‐2034.
Uschner D, Schindler D, Hilgers R, Heussen N. randomizeR: an R package for the assessment and implementation of randomization in clinical trials. J Stat Softw. 2018;85(8):1‐22.
Kuznetsova O. Selection bias in studies with unequal allocation. In: Berger V, ed. Randomization, Masking, and Allocation Concealment. New York: Chapman and Hall/CRC; 2018:89‐122.
Zhao W, Weng Y. Block urn design—a new randomization algorithm for sequential trials with two or more treatments and balanced or unbalanced allocation. Contemp Clin Trials. 2011;32:953‐961.
Ryeznik Y, Sverdlov O. A comparative study of restricted randomization procedures for multiarm trials with equal or unequal treatment allocation ratios. Stat Med. 2018;37(21):3056‐3077.