Use of randomisation in clinical trials: a survey of UK practice

Gladys Campbell McPherson, Marion Kay Campbell, Diana R Elbourne

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

5 Citations (Scopus)
3 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

Background
In healthcare research the randomised controlled trial is seen as the gold standard because it ensures selection bias is minimised. However, there is uncertainty as to which is the most preferred method of randomisation in any given setting and to what extent more complex methods are actually being implemented in the field.

Methods
In this paper we describe the results of a survey of UK academics and publicly funded researchers to examine the extent of the use of various methods of randomisation in clinical trials.

Results
Trialists reported using simple randomisation, permuted blocks and stratification more often than more complex methods such as minimisation. Most trialists believed that simple randomisation is suitable for larger trials but there is a high probability of possible imbalance between treatment groups in small trials. It was thought that groups should be balanced at baseline to avoid imbalance and help face-validity. However, very few respondents considered that more complex methods offer any advantages.

Conclusions
This paper demonstrates that for most UK trialists the preferred method of randomisation is using permuted blocks of varying random length within strata. This method eliminates the problem of predictability while maintaining balance across combinations of factors. If the number of prognostic factors is large, then minimisation can be used to provide treatment balance as well as balance over these factors. However, only those factors known to affect outcome should be considered.
Original languageEnglish
Article number198
JournalTrials
Volume13
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 26 Oct 2012

Fingerprint

Random Allocation
Clinical Trials
Selection Bias
Health Services Research
Surveys and Questionnaires
Reproducibility of Results
Uncertainty
Randomized Controlled Trials
Research Personnel

Keywords

  • survey
  • randomisation
  • minimisation

Cite this

Use of randomisation in clinical trials : a survey of UK practice. / McPherson, Gladys Campbell; Campbell, Marion Kay; Elbourne, Diana R.

In: Trials, Vol. 13, 198, 26.10.2012.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

McPherson, Gladys Campbell ; Campbell, Marion Kay ; Elbourne, Diana R. / Use of randomisation in clinical trials : a survey of UK practice. In: Trials. 2012 ; Vol. 13.
@article{5e4ef692be47476bbcb93eff65e1bd19,
title = "Use of randomisation in clinical trials: a survey of UK practice",
abstract = "BackgroundIn healthcare research the randomised controlled trial is seen as the gold standard because it ensures selection bias is minimised. However, there is uncertainty as to which is the most preferred method of randomisation in any given setting and to what extent more complex methods are actually being implemented in the field.MethodsIn this paper we describe the results of a survey of UK academics and publicly funded researchers to examine the extent of the use of various methods of randomisation in clinical trials.ResultsTrialists reported using simple randomisation, permuted blocks and stratification more often than more complex methods such as minimisation. Most trialists believed that simple randomisation is suitable for larger trials but there is a high probability of possible imbalance between treatment groups in small trials. It was thought that groups should be balanced at baseline to avoid imbalance and help face-validity. However, very few respondents considered that more complex methods offer any advantages.ConclusionsThis paper demonstrates that for most UK trialists the preferred method of randomisation is using permuted blocks of varying random length within strata. This method eliminates the problem of predictability while maintaining balance across combinations of factors. If the number of prognostic factors is large, then minimisation can be used to provide treatment balance as well as balance over these factors. However, only those factors known to affect outcome should be considered.",
keywords = "survey, randomisation, minimisation",
author = "McPherson, {Gladys Campbell} and Campbell, {Marion Kay} and Elbourne, {Diana R}",
year = "2012",
month = "10",
day = "26",
doi = "10.1186/1745-6215-13-198",
language = "English",
volume = "13",
journal = "Trials",
issn = "1745-6215",
publisher = "BioMed Central",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Use of randomisation in clinical trials

T2 - a survey of UK practice

AU - McPherson, Gladys Campbell

AU - Campbell, Marion Kay

AU - Elbourne, Diana R

PY - 2012/10/26

Y1 - 2012/10/26

N2 - BackgroundIn healthcare research the randomised controlled trial is seen as the gold standard because it ensures selection bias is minimised. However, there is uncertainty as to which is the most preferred method of randomisation in any given setting and to what extent more complex methods are actually being implemented in the field.MethodsIn this paper we describe the results of a survey of UK academics and publicly funded researchers to examine the extent of the use of various methods of randomisation in clinical trials.ResultsTrialists reported using simple randomisation, permuted blocks and stratification more often than more complex methods such as minimisation. Most trialists believed that simple randomisation is suitable for larger trials but there is a high probability of possible imbalance between treatment groups in small trials. It was thought that groups should be balanced at baseline to avoid imbalance and help face-validity. However, very few respondents considered that more complex methods offer any advantages.ConclusionsThis paper demonstrates that for most UK trialists the preferred method of randomisation is using permuted blocks of varying random length within strata. This method eliminates the problem of predictability while maintaining balance across combinations of factors. If the number of prognostic factors is large, then minimisation can be used to provide treatment balance as well as balance over these factors. However, only those factors known to affect outcome should be considered.

AB - BackgroundIn healthcare research the randomised controlled trial is seen as the gold standard because it ensures selection bias is minimised. However, there is uncertainty as to which is the most preferred method of randomisation in any given setting and to what extent more complex methods are actually being implemented in the field.MethodsIn this paper we describe the results of a survey of UK academics and publicly funded researchers to examine the extent of the use of various methods of randomisation in clinical trials.ResultsTrialists reported using simple randomisation, permuted blocks and stratification more often than more complex methods such as minimisation. Most trialists believed that simple randomisation is suitable for larger trials but there is a high probability of possible imbalance between treatment groups in small trials. It was thought that groups should be balanced at baseline to avoid imbalance and help face-validity. However, very few respondents considered that more complex methods offer any advantages.ConclusionsThis paper demonstrates that for most UK trialists the preferred method of randomisation is using permuted blocks of varying random length within strata. This method eliminates the problem of predictability while maintaining balance across combinations of factors. If the number of prognostic factors is large, then minimisation can be used to provide treatment balance as well as balance over these factors. However, only those factors known to affect outcome should be considered.

KW - survey

KW - randomisation

KW - minimisation

U2 - 10.1186/1745-6215-13-198

DO - 10.1186/1745-6215-13-198

M3 - Article

VL - 13

JO - Trials

JF - Trials

SN - 1745-6215

M1 - 198

ER -