Jump to: Page Content, Site Navigation, Site Search,
You are seeing this message because your web browser does not support basic web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.
Chris Roberts a National Primary
Care Research and Development Centre, University of Manchester,
Manchester M13 6PL, b National Primary Care Research and Development
Centre, Centre for Health Economics, University of York, York YO1 5DD
The main purpose of randomisation is to avoid bias by
distributing the characteristics of patients that may influence outcome randomly between treatment groups so that any difference in outcome can
be explained only by treatment. These characteristics might be
demographic ones such age or prognostic factors such as clinical history or disease severity. For example menopausal status may influence outcome of treatment for breast cancer.
The most elementary form of randomisation is, in the case of two
treatments, equivalent to allocating treatment by tossing a coin. Lists
for allocating patients by simple randomisation may be constructed with
tables of random numbers or random functions on pocket calculators or
statistical software. Treatments may then be allocated to patients in
sequence using numbered opaque envelopes containing treatment
allocations or remotely by phone.
While such simple randomisation will on average allocate equal numbers
to each arm, even in quite large trials simple randomisation can result
in groups of different sizes. In small trials there may be substantial
differences in group sizes that will reduce the precision of estimates
of the difference in treatment effect and hence efficiency of the
study.
One method to prevent unequal treatment group sizes is block
randomisation. This guarantees that at no time will the imbalance be
large and at certain points the numbers of participants in each group
will be equal. If, for example, we choose blocks of four, there are six
sequences to which we can allocate treatments A and B: AABB, ABAB,
ABBA, BAAB, BABA, and BBAA. One of the six arrangements is selected
randomly and then four participants assigned accordingly. The process
is then repeated as many times as is needed for the required sample
size.
With simple randomisation or block randomisation substantial imbalance
in prognostic characteristics can, nevertheless, arise by chance and
can bias the analysis of outcome. One method to achieve balance between
groups for a prognostic variable is stratified randomisation, in which
separate randomisation lists are used for each prognostic subgroup. For
example, in a study of alternative treatments for breast cancer it
would be advantageous to stratify on menopausal status. Separate
randomisation lists would be prepared for each stratum using a block
randomisation. It should be noted that using simple randomisation with
each stratum would defeat the purpose of stratification as the
resulting randomisation would be no different from simple
randomisation. A standard practice in multicentre trials is to stratify
randomisation by treatment centre.
Stratification may be extended to two or more factors, although the
number of separate randomisation lists rapidly becomes very large. For
example, if one was to stratify on three prognostic variables, with
each having just two levels, eight separate randomisation lists would
be required for each combination of factors. In practice therefore it
is rarely feasible to go beyond two factors.
Stratified randomisation makes the process more elaborate and brings
with it the risk of mistakes that the simpler methods might prevent. If
there is uncertainty about which patient characteristics may influence
the outcome of treatment it may be prudent to proceed without
stratification.1
An alternative method of obtaining treatment groups that are comparable
in prognostic variables is minimisation. This achieves balance on a set
of prognostic factors, although not for each combination. Even in small
trials it will provide groups that are very similar on several
prognostic factors. For all levels of each prognostic factor on which
the investigator wishes to maintain balance, a running total is kept of
how many patients have been assigned to each treatment. At the start of
the trial treatment is randomly allocated to the first patient.
Subsequent patients are assigned using a randomisation weighted towards
the group to which assignment would minimise the imbalance. After each
patient is entered the relevant totals for each factor are updated
ready for the patient. Details with examples of the minimisation method
are discussed by Pocock1 and Altman.2
Whatever method of allocation is used, the process of allocation needs
to be done in such as way that the randomisation cannot be deciphered,
a topic discussed in a forthcoming note.
References
What can you learn from this BMJ paper? Read Leanne Tite's Paper+