The method of minimization for allocation to clinical trials: a review

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

327 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Minimization is a largely nonrandom method of treatment allocation for clinical trials. We conducted a systematic literature search to determine, its advantages and disadvantages compared with other allocation methods. Minimization was originally proposed by Taves and by Pocock and Simon. The latter paper introduces a family of allocation methods of which Taves' method is the simplest example. Minimization aims to ensure treatment arms are balanced with respect to predefined patient factors as well as for the number of patients in each group. Further extensions of the method have also been proposed by other authors. Simulation studies show that minimization provides better balanced treatment groups when compared with restricted or unrestricted randomization and that it can incorporate more prognostic factors than stratified randomization methods such as permuted blocks within strata. Some more computationally complex methods may give an even better performance. Concerns over the use of minimization have centered on the fact that treatment assignments may be predicted with certainty in some situations and on the implications for the analysis methods used. It has been suggested that adjustment should always be made for minimization factors when analyzing trials where minimization is the allocation method used. The use of minimization may sometimes result in added organizational complexity compared with other methods. Minimization has been recommended by many commentators for use in clinical trials. Despite this it is still rarely used in practice. From the evidence presented in this review, we believe minimization to be a highly effective allocation method and recommend its wider adoption in the conduct of randomized controlled trials. (C) 2002 Elsevier Science Inc. All fights reserved.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)662-674
Number of pages12
JournalControlled Clinical Trials
Volume23
Issue number6
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2002

Keywords

  • minimization
  • randomization
  • clinical trials
  • systematic review
  • SEQUENTIAL TREATMENT ALLOCATION
  • BIASED-COIN DESIGNS
  • PROGNOSTIC FACTORS
  • OTITIS-MEDIA
  • RANDOMIZATION
  • EFFUSION
  • PATIENT

Cite this

The method of minimization for allocation to clinical trials: a review. / Scott, Neil William; McPherson, Gladys Campbell; Campbell, Marion Kay; Ramsay, Craig R.

In: Controlled Clinical Trials, Vol. 23, No. 6, 2002, p. 662-674.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{f5bcfd0609c94d37ba37420aec349227,
title = "The method of minimization for allocation to clinical trials: a review",
abstract = "Minimization is a largely nonrandom method of treatment allocation for clinical trials. We conducted a systematic literature search to determine, its advantages and disadvantages compared with other allocation methods. Minimization was originally proposed by Taves and by Pocock and Simon. The latter paper introduces a family of allocation methods of which Taves' method is the simplest example. Minimization aims to ensure treatment arms are balanced with respect to predefined patient factors as well as for the number of patients in each group. Further extensions of the method have also been proposed by other authors. Simulation studies show that minimization provides better balanced treatment groups when compared with restricted or unrestricted randomization and that it can incorporate more prognostic factors than stratified randomization methods such as permuted blocks within strata. Some more computationally complex methods may give an even better performance. Concerns over the use of minimization have centered on the fact that treatment assignments may be predicted with certainty in some situations and on the implications for the analysis methods used. It has been suggested that adjustment should always be made for minimization factors when analyzing trials where minimization is the allocation method used. The use of minimization may sometimes result in added organizational complexity compared with other methods. Minimization has been recommended by many commentators for use in clinical trials. Despite this it is still rarely used in practice. From the evidence presented in this review, we believe minimization to be a highly effective allocation method and recommend its wider adoption in the conduct of randomized controlled trials. (C) 2002 Elsevier Science Inc. All fights reserved.",
keywords = "minimization, randomization, clinical trials, systematic review, SEQUENTIAL TREATMENT ALLOCATION, BIASED-COIN DESIGNS, PROGNOSTIC FACTORS, OTITIS-MEDIA, RANDOMIZATION, EFFUSION, PATIENT",
author = "Scott, {Neil William} and McPherson, {Gladys Campbell} and Campbell, {Marion Kay} and Ramsay, {Craig R}",
year = "2002",
doi = "10.1016/S0197-2456(02)00242-8",
language = "English",
volume = "23",
pages = "662--674",
journal = "Controlled Clinical Trials",
issn = "0197-2456",
publisher = "Elsevier BV",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - The method of minimization for allocation to clinical trials: a review

AU - Scott, Neil William

AU - McPherson, Gladys Campbell

AU - Campbell, Marion Kay

AU - Ramsay, Craig R

PY - 2002

Y1 - 2002

N2 - Minimization is a largely nonrandom method of treatment allocation for clinical trials. We conducted a systematic literature search to determine, its advantages and disadvantages compared with other allocation methods. Minimization was originally proposed by Taves and by Pocock and Simon. The latter paper introduces a family of allocation methods of which Taves' method is the simplest example. Minimization aims to ensure treatment arms are balanced with respect to predefined patient factors as well as for the number of patients in each group. Further extensions of the method have also been proposed by other authors. Simulation studies show that minimization provides better balanced treatment groups when compared with restricted or unrestricted randomization and that it can incorporate more prognostic factors than stratified randomization methods such as permuted blocks within strata. Some more computationally complex methods may give an even better performance. Concerns over the use of minimization have centered on the fact that treatment assignments may be predicted with certainty in some situations and on the implications for the analysis methods used. It has been suggested that adjustment should always be made for minimization factors when analyzing trials where minimization is the allocation method used. The use of minimization may sometimes result in added organizational complexity compared with other methods. Minimization has been recommended by many commentators for use in clinical trials. Despite this it is still rarely used in practice. From the evidence presented in this review, we believe minimization to be a highly effective allocation method and recommend its wider adoption in the conduct of randomized controlled trials. (C) 2002 Elsevier Science Inc. All fights reserved.

AB - Minimization is a largely nonrandom method of treatment allocation for clinical trials. We conducted a systematic literature search to determine, its advantages and disadvantages compared with other allocation methods. Minimization was originally proposed by Taves and by Pocock and Simon. The latter paper introduces a family of allocation methods of which Taves' method is the simplest example. Minimization aims to ensure treatment arms are balanced with respect to predefined patient factors as well as for the number of patients in each group. Further extensions of the method have also been proposed by other authors. Simulation studies show that minimization provides better balanced treatment groups when compared with restricted or unrestricted randomization and that it can incorporate more prognostic factors than stratified randomization methods such as permuted blocks within strata. Some more computationally complex methods may give an even better performance. Concerns over the use of minimization have centered on the fact that treatment assignments may be predicted with certainty in some situations and on the implications for the analysis methods used. It has been suggested that adjustment should always be made for minimization factors when analyzing trials where minimization is the allocation method used. The use of minimization may sometimes result in added organizational complexity compared with other methods. Minimization has been recommended by many commentators for use in clinical trials. Despite this it is still rarely used in practice. From the evidence presented in this review, we believe minimization to be a highly effective allocation method and recommend its wider adoption in the conduct of randomized controlled trials. (C) 2002 Elsevier Science Inc. All fights reserved.

KW - minimization

KW - randomization

KW - clinical trials

KW - systematic review

KW - SEQUENTIAL TREATMENT ALLOCATION

KW - BIASED-COIN DESIGNS

KW - PROGNOSTIC FACTORS

KW - OTITIS-MEDIA

KW - RANDOMIZATION

KW - EFFUSION

KW - PATIENT

U2 - 10.1016/S0197-2456(02)00242-8

DO - 10.1016/S0197-2456(02)00242-8

M3 - Article

VL - 23

SP - 662

EP - 674

JO - Controlled Clinical Trials

JF - Controlled Clinical Trials

SN - 0197-2456

IS - 6

ER -