PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 10699684

An easily customized, random allocation system using the minimization method for multi-institutional clinical trials.

Abstract

In a randomized clinical trial, random allocation of patients to treatment groups should be done to balance in the distribution of prognostic factors. Random allocation in a multi-institutional randomized clinical trial is conducted by a coordinating center, independent of the medical institution the attending doctor uses for his/her practice. This study provides a sophisticated system for doing an exact random allocation of patients to treatment groups. The minimization method proposed by Pocock was applied to this system to balance the distribution of prognostic factors between two treatment groups, even when the number of registered patients is relatively small (S.J. Pocock, Allocation of patients to treatment in clinical trial, Biometrics 35 (1979) 183-197). Furthermore, Zelen's method is used to balance the number of patients allocated to the two groups within each institution (M. Zelen, The randomization and stratification of patients to clinical trials, J. Chron. Dis. 27 (1974) 365-375.). This system was created by the 'PERL’ language for writing common gateway interface (CGI) script, and can therefore, be easily extended to include data entry function by attending doctors as well as the random allocation function. This system is being used effectively in thirteen multi-institutional randomized clinical trials for stomach, colon-rectum and breast cancers in Japan.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Y Kenjo, Y Antoku, K Akazawa, E Hanada, N Kinukawa, Y Nose. 2000. An easily customized, random allocation system using the minimization method for multi-institutional clinical trials.. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0169-2607(99)00047-4

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Mistletoe for cancer? A systematic review of randomised clinical trials.

Mistletoe extracts are widely used in the treatment of cancer. The results of clinical trials are however highly inconsistent. We therefore conducted a systematic review of all randomised clinical trials of this unconventional therapy. Eight databases were searched to identify all studies that met our inclusion/exclusion criteria. Data were independently validated and extracted by 2 authors and checked by the 3rd according to predefined criteria. Statistical pooling was not possible because of the heterogeneity of the primary studies. Therefore a narrative systematic review was conducted. Ten trials could be included. Most of the studies had considerable weaknesses in terms of study design, reporting or both. Some of the weaker studies implied benefits of mistletoe extracts, particularly in terms of quality of life. None of the methodologically stronger trials exhibited efficacy in terms of quality of life, survival or other outcome measures. Rigorous trials of mistletoe extracts fail to demonstrate efficacy of this therapy.

Clinical Trials as Topic↗

On the non-inferiority of a diagnostic test based on paired observations.

Non-inferiority of a diagnostic test to the standard or the optimum test is a common issue in medical research. Often we want to determine if a new diagnostic test is as good as the standard reference test. Sometimes we are interested in an inexpensive test that may have an acceptably inferior sensitivity or specificity. While hypothesis testing procedures and sample size formulae for the equivalence of sensitivity or specificity alone have been proposed, very few studies have discussed simultaneous comparisons of both parameters. In this paper, we present three different testing procedures and sample size formulae for simultaneous comparison of sensitivity and specificity based on paired observations and with known disease status. These statistical procedures are then used to compare two classification rules that identify women for future osteoporotic fracture. Simulation experiments demonstrate that the new tests and sample size formulae give the appropriate type I and II error rates. Differences between our approach and the approach of Lui and Cumberland are discussed.

Clinical Trials as Topic↗