BMJ 1998;317:362-363 ( 8 August )

Editorials

Minimisation: the platinum standard for trials?

Randomisation doesn't guarantee similarity of groups; minimisation does 

When we have to decide which of two drugs, interventions, or management strategies is the better, the most secure evidence is generally obtained from a randomised controlled trial. The primary objective of randomisation is to ensure that all other factors that might influence the outcome will be equally represented in the two groups, leaving the treatment under test as the only dissimilarity. Any difference in outcome can then be attributed to the treatment effect. But how realistic is this assumption in practice?

When published a randomised trial typically includes a table listing all the prior factors known actually or possibly to influence outcome. The average age and its distribution in each group and the proportion of men and women usually head the list, followed by other likely determinants of outcome. In the case of heart disease these will probably include details of left ventricular function; the proportions in each group with diabetes, hypertension, hyperlipidaemia, or a smoking history; the relative incidence of arrhythmia, obesity, symptoms of heart failure; and any others factors that may have been collected. If these are similar in the two groups (which is not the same as showing that they are not statistically different) then we can go on to attribute any difference in outcome to the benefit of treatment over placebo, or of one treatment over another. But what if there are differences?

Indeed, if there are many possible prognostic factors there will almost certainly be differences between the groups despite the use of random allocation. In a small clinical trial a large treatment effect is being sought, but a large difference in one or more of the prognostic factors can occur purely by chance. In a large clinical trial a small treatment effect is being sought, but small but important differences between the groups in one or more of the prognostic factors can occur by chance.

Supposing one group has more elderly women with diabetes and symptoms of heart failure. It would then be impossible to attribute a better outcome in the other group to the beneficial effects of treatment since poor left ventricular function and age at outset are major determinants of survival in any longitudinal study of heart disease, and women with diabetes, as a group, are likely to do worse. At this point the primary objective of randomisationexclusion of confounding factorshas failed.

Attempts are then made to retrieve the situation by multivariate analysis, allocating part of the difference in outcome to the known, unwanted difference in the groups, but there is always an air of uncertainty about the validity of the conclusion. This may seem to be less of a risk in a very big trial, because we can expect things to even out, but big trials are done to seek small differences, and even a small difference in other determinants of outcome may be important. If a very big trial fails, because, for example, the play of chance put more hypertensive smokers in one group than the other, the tragedy for the trialists, and all involved, is even greater.

The way to avoid this is by minimisationnot a well known techniquefirst described by Taves in 1974¹ and shortly after by Pocock and Simon² and Freedman and White.³ With this method the group allocation does not rely solely on chance but is designed to reduce any difference in the distribution of known or suspected determinants of outcome, so that any effect can be attributed to the treatment under test. The trialists determine at the outset which factors they would like to see equally represented in the two groups. In our study of aspirin versus placebo in the two weeks before elective coronary artery surgery we chose age, sex, operating surgeon, number of coronary arteries affected, and left ventricular function.⁴ But in trials in other diseases those chosen might be tumour type, disease stage, joint mobility, pain score, or social class.

At the point when it is decided that a patient is definitely to enter a trial, these factors are listed. The treatment allocation is then made, not purely by chance, but by determining in which group inclusion of the patient would minimise any differences in these factors. Thus, if group A has a higher average age and a disproportionate number of smokers, other things being equal, the next elderly smoker is likely to be allocated to group B. The allocation may rely on minimisation alone, or still involve chance but "with the dice loaded" in favour of the allocation which minimises the differences.

This process must be handled out of sight of any individual who might introduce bias, but this is equally true of randomisationwhich we know can be subverted by the (often unconscious) vested interests of the trialists. The individual trialist does not know how the risk factors are accruing and cannot influence the allocation. If the trial is double blind the trialists do not know which groups the present patients are in so subsequent decisions to include a patient in the trial cannot be influenced by any knowledge of which group they are more or less likely to enter. Exclusion of bias is as readily achieved as it is with properly performed randomisation, but with the advantage that similarity of the two groups is ensured, rather than hoped for.

The theoretical validity of the method of minimisation was shown by Smith,⁵ and White and Freedman have reviewed alternative methods of patient allocation.⁶ A recent example of the use of minimisation is found in Kallis et al.⁴ If randomisation is the gold standard, minimisation may be the platinum standard.

Tom Treasure, Consultant cardiothoracic surgeon. 

St George's Hospital, London SW17 0RE

Kenneth D MacRae, Statistician. 

Charing Cross Hospital, London W6 8RP

---

1. Taves DR. Minimization: a new method of assigning patients to treatment and control groups. Clin Pharmacol Therap 1974; 15: 443-453[Medline].
2. Pocock SJ, Simon R. Sequential treatment assignment with balancing for prognostic factors in the controlled clinical trial. Biometrics 1975; 31: 103-115[Medline].
3. Freedman LS, White SJ. On the use of Pocock and Simon's method for balancing treatment numbers over prognostic factors in the controlled clinical trial. Biometrics 1976; 32: 691-694[Medline].
4. Kallis P, Tooze JA, Talbot S, Cowans D, Bevan DH, Treasure T. Pre-operative aspirin decreases platelet aggregation and increases post-operative blood loss: a prospective, randomised, placebo controlled, double-blind clinical trial in 100 patients with chronic stable angina. Eur J Cardiothoracic Surg 1994; 8: 404-409[Abstract].
5. Smith RL. Sequential treatment allocation using biased coin designs. J Roy Statist Soc B 1984; 46: 519-543.
6. White SJ, Freedman LS. Allocation of patients to treatment groups in a controlled clinical trial. Br J Cancer 1978; 37: 849-857[Medline].

---

© BMJ 1998
CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?

Relevant Articles

Paracetamol plus ibuprofen for the treatment of fever in children (PITCH): randomised controlled trial

Alastair D Hay, Céire Costelloe, Niamh M Redmond, Alan A Montgomery, Margaret Fletcher, Sandra Hollinghurst, and Tim J Peters
BMJ 2008 337: a1302. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Minimisation is much better than the randomised block design in certain cases

Tom Treasure and Kenneth D MacRae
BMJ 1999 318: 1420. [Extract] [Full Text]

Randomised block design is more powerful than minimisation

N Ross
BMJ 1999 318: 263. [Extract] [Full Text]

This article has been cited by other articles:

• Hay, A. D, Costelloe, C., Redmond, N. M, Montgomery, A. A, Fletcher, M., Hollinghurst, S., Peters, T. J (2008). Paracetamol plus ibuprofen for the treatment of fever in children (PITCH): randomised controlled trial. BMJ 337: a1302-a1302 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Treasure, T. (2008). Pulmonary metastasectomy for colorectal cancer: weak evidence and no randomised trials. Eur. J. Cardiothorac. Surg. 33: 300-302 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Protheroe, J., Bower, P., Chew-Graham, C., Peters, T. J., Fahey, T. (2007). Effectiveness of a Computerized Decision Aid in Primary Care on Decision Making and Quality of Life in Menorrhagia: Results of the MENTIP Randomized Controlled Trial. Med Decis Making 27: 575-584 [Abstract]  
• Siva, R., Green, R. H., Brightling, C. E., Shelley, M., Hargadon, B., McKenna, S., Monteiro, W., Berry, M., Parker, D., Wardlaw, A. J., Pavord, I. D. (2007). Eosinophilic airway inflammation and exacerbations of COPD: a randomised controlled trial. Eur Respir J 29: 906-913 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• McMahon, J. A., Skeaff, C. M., Williams, S. M., Green, T. J. (2007). Lowering Homocysteine with B Vitamins Has No Effect on Blood Pressure in Older Adults. J. Nutr. 137: 1183-1187 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Capell, H. A, Madhok, R., Porter, D. R, Munro, R. A L, McInnes, I. B, Hunter, J. A, Steven, M., Zoma, A., Morrison, E., Sambrook, M., Wui Poon, F., Hampson, R., McDonald, F., Tierney, A., Henderson, N., Ford, I. (2007). Combination therapy with sulfasalazine and methotrexate is more effective than either drug alone in patients with rheumatoid arthritis with a suboptimal response to sulfasalazine: results from the double-blind placebo-controlled MASCOT study. Ann Rheum Dis 66: 235-241 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Houslay, E S, Cowell, S J, Prescott, R J, Reid, J, Burton, J, Northridge, D B, Boon, N A, Newby, D E, on behalf of the Scottish Aortic Stenosis and Lipi, (2006). Progressive coronary calcification despite intensive lipid-lowering treatment: a randomised controlled trial. Heart 92: 1207-1212 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Morrison, E., Capell, H. A. (2006). Corticosteroids in the management of early and established rheumatoid disease. Rheumatology (Oxford) 45: 1058-1061 [Full text]  
• Struijs, P A A, Korthals-de Bos, I B C, van Tulder, M W, van Dijk, C N, Bouter, L M, Assendelft, W J J, Pluim, B M (2006). Cost effectiveness of brace, physiotherapy, or both for treatment of tennis elbow * Commentary. Br. J. Sports. Med. 40: 637-643 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Robinson, A, Lee, V, Kennedy, A, Middleton, L, Rogers, A, Thompson, D G, Reeves, D (2006). A randomised controlled trial of self-help interventions in patients with a primary care diagnosis of irritable bowel syndrome. Gut 55: 643-648 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Zafar, M., John, A., Khan, Z., Allen, S. M., Marchbank, A. J., Lewis, C. T., Dalrymple-Hay, M. J.R., Kuo, J., Unsworth-White, J. (2005). Single-Layer Versus Multiple-Layer Closure of Leg Wounds After Long Saphenous Vein Harvest: A Prospective Randomized Trial. Ann. Thorac. Surg. 80: 2162-2165 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Struijs, P. A. A., Spruyt, M., Assendelft, W. J. J., van Dijk, C. N. (2005). The Predictive Value of Diagnostic Sonography for the Effectiveness of Conservative Treatment of Tennis Elbow. Am. J. Roentgenol. 185: 1113-1118 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Cowell, S. J., Newby, D. E., Prescott, R. J., Bloomfield, P., Reid, J., Northridge, D. B., Boon, N. A., the Scottish Aortic Stenosis and Lipid Lowering Tr, (2005). A Randomized Trial of Intensive Lipid-Lowering Therapy in Calcific Aortic Stenosis. NEJM 352: 2389-2397 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Altman, D. G, Bland, J M. (2005). Treatment allocation by minimisation. BMJ 330: 843-843 [Full text]  
• Davidson, I., Hillier, V. F, Waters, K., Walton, T., Booth, J. (2005). A study to assess the effect of nursing interventions at the weekend for people with stroke. Clin Rehabil 19: 126-137 [Abstract]  
• Capell, H A, Madhok, R, Hunter, J A, Porter, D, Morrison, E, Larkin, J, Thomson, E A, Hampson, R, Poon, F W (2004). Lack of radiological and clinical benefit over two years of low dose prednisolone for rheumatoid arthritis: results of a randomised controlled trial. Ann Rheum Dis 63: 797-803 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Anyanwu, A. C., Treasure, T. (2004). Surgical research revisited: clinical trials in the cardiothoracic surgical literature. Eur. J. Cardiothorac. Surg. 25: 299-303 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Struijs, P. A. A., Kerkhoffs, G. M. M. J., Assendelft, W. J. J., van Dijk, C. N. (2004). Conservative Treatment of Lateral Epicondylitis: Brace Versus Physical Therapy or a Combination of Both--A Randomized Clinical Trial. Am J Sports Med 32: 462-469 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Taylor, S. A., Halligan, S., Goh, V., Morley, S., Bassett, P., Atkin, W., Bartram, C. I. (2003). Optimizing Colonic Distention for Multi-Detector Row CT Colonography: Effect of Hyoscine Butylbromide and Rectal Balloon Catheter. Radiology 229: 99-108 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Steptoe, A., Perkins-Porras, L., McKay, C., Rink, E., Hilton, S., Cappuccio, F. P (2003). Behavioural counselling to increase consumption of fruit and vegetables in low income adults: randomised trial. BMJ 326: 855-855 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Palmer, C R (2002). Ethics, data-dependent designs, and the strategy of clinical trials: time to start learning-as-we-go?. Stat Methods Med Res 11: 381-402 [Abstract]  
• Graham, A., Moore, L., Sharp, D., Diamond, I. (2002). Improving teenagers' knowledge of emergency contraception: cluster randomised controlled trial of a teacher led intervention. BMJ 324: 1179-1179 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Bonser, R. S., Wong, C. H., Harrington, D., Pagano, D., Wilkes, M., Clutton-Brock, T., Faroqui, M. (2002). Failure of retrograde cerebral perfusion to attenuate metabolic changes associated with hypothermic circulatory arrest. J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg. 123: 943-950 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Lim, K. H. H., Caputo, M., Ascione, R., Wild, J., West, R., Angelini, G. D., Bryan, A. J., Calafiore, S. A. M. (2002). Prospective randomized comparison of CarboMedics and St Jude Medical bileaflet mechanical heart valve prostheses: An interim report. J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg. 123: 21-32 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Gillan, M. G. C., Gilbert, F. J., Andrew, J. E., Grant, A. M., Wardlaw, D., Valentine, N. W., Gregori, A. C., For the Scottish Back Trial Group, (2001). Influence of Imaging on Clinical Decision Making in the Treatment of Lower Back Pain. Radiology 220: 393-399 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Brown, M.J., Palmer, C.R., Castaigne, A., de Leeuw, P.W., Mancia, G., Rosenthal, T., Ruilope, L.M. (2001). Principal results from the international nifedipine GITS study: Intervention as a goal in hypertension treatment (INSIGHT). Eur Heart J Suppl 3: B20-B26 [Abstract]  
• The European Orgalutran Study Group, , Borm, G., Mannaerts, B. (2000). Treatment with the gonadotrophin-releasing hormone antagonist ganirelix in women undergoing ovarian stimulation with recombinant follicle stimulating hormone is effective, safe and convenient: results of a controlled, randomized, multicentre trial. Hum Reprod 15: 1490-1498 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Brown, M. J., Castaigne, A., de Leeuw, P. W., Mancia, G., Palmer, C. R., Rosenthal, T., Ruilope, L. M. (2000). Influence of Diabetes and Type of Hypertension on Response to Antihypertensive Treatment. Hypertension 35: 1038-1042 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Buckberg, G. D. (2000). Substrate enriched warm blood cardioplegia reperfusion: an alternate view. Ann. Thorac. Surg. 69: 334-335 [Full text]  
• Edwards, R., Treasure, T., Hossein-Nia, M., Murday, A., Kantidakis, G. H., Holt, D. W. (2000). A controlled trial of substrate-enhanced, warm reperfusion (""hot shot"") versus simple reperfusion. Ann. Thorac. Surg. 69: 551-555 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Makrides, M., Neumann, M. A, Jeffrey, B., Lien, E. L, Gibson, R. A (2000). A randomized trial of different ratios of linoleic to {alpha}-linolenic acid in the diet of term infants: effects on visual function and growth1. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 71: 120-129 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Steptoe, A., Doherty, S., Rink, E., Kerry, S., Kendrick, T., Hilton, S., Day, S. (1999). Behavioural counselling in general practice for the promotion of healthy behaviour among adults at increased risk of coronary heart disease: randomised trial • Commentary: Treatment allocation by the method of minimisation. BMJ 319: 943-948 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Altman, D. G, Bland, J M. (1999). Statistics notes: How to randomise. BMJ 319: 703-704 [Full text]  
• Feder, G., Griffiths, C., Eldridge, S., Spence, M. (1999). Effect of postal prompts to patients and general practitioners on the quality of primary care after a coronary event (POST): randomised controlled trial. BMJ 318: 1522-1526 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• KHAN, K. S., CHIEN, P. F. W., DWARAKANATH, L. S. (1999). Logistic Regression Models in Obstetrics and Gynecology Literature. Obstet Gynecol 93: 1014-1020 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Treasure, T., MacRae, K. D (1999). Minimisation is much better than the randomised block design in certain cases. BMJ 318: 1420-1420 [Full text]  
• Ross, N (1999). Randomised block design is more powerful than minimisation. BMJ 318: 263-263 [Full text]  

Rapid Responses:

Read all Rapid Responses

Randomised block design is even more powerful

Nick Ross
bmj.com, 19 Aug 1998 [Full text]