Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22287602›Full record

ArticleStatistical methods in medical research2015

Minimal sufficient balance-a new strategy to balance baseline covariates and preserve randomness of treatment allocation.

Wenle Zhao, Michael D Hill, Yuko Palesch

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Statistical methods in medical research, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 51 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
51citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

51 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Endovascular treatment to improve outcomes for medium vessel occlusions: The ESCAPE-MeVO trial.International journal of stroke : official journal of the International Stroke Society · 2024
    Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Trial
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Wenle ZhaoDivision of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, Medical University of South Carolina, USA zhaow@musc.edu.
Michael D HillDepartment of Clinical Neurosciences and Hotchkiss Brain Institute, University of Calgary, Canada.
Yuko PaleschDivision of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, Medical University of South Carolina, USA.

Funding

Neurological Emergencies Treatment Trials Network Statistical and Data ManagementU01NS059041 · NINDS · MEDICAL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA · PI DURKALSKI, VALERIE L, PALESCH, YUKO Y · 2006 to 2015
$9.1M
The ALIAS StudyU01NS054630 · NINDS · MEDICAL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA · PI PALESCH, YUKO Y · 2005 to 2010
$6.9M
NINDS NIH HHS U01 NS0059041NINDS NIH HHS U01 NS054630NINDS NIH HHS U01NS054630NINDS NIH HHS U01 NS059041
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In many clinical trials, baseline covariates could affect the primary outcome. Commonly used strategies to balance baseline covariates include stratified constrained randomization and minimization. Stratification is limited to few categorical covariates. Minimization lacks the randomness of treatment allocation. Both apply only to categorical covariates. As a result, serious imbalances could occur in important baseline covariates not included in the randomization algorithm. Furthermore, randomness of treatment allocation could be significantly compromised because of the high proportion of deterministic assignments associated with stratified block randomization and minimization, potentially resulting in selection bias. Serious baseline covariate imbalances and selection biases often contribute to controversial interpretation of the trial results. The National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke recombinant tissue plasminogen activator Stroke Trial and the Captopril Prevention Project are two examples. In this article, we propose a new randomization strategy, termed the minimal sufficient balance randomization, which will dually prevent serious imbalances in all important baseline covariates, including both categorical and continuous types, and preserve the randomness of treatment allocation. Computer simulations are conducted using the data from the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke recombinant tissue plasminogen activator Stroke Trial. Serious imbalances in four continuous and one categorical covariate are prevented with a small cost in treatment allocation randomness. A scenario of simultaneously balancing 11 baseline covariates is explored with similar promising results. The proposed minimal sufficient balance randomization algorithm can be easily implemented in computerized central randomization systems for large multicenter trials.

Indexed as

Random AllocationAgedBiasFemaleHumansMaleModels, StatisticalRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicSample Sizebaseline covariate imbalanceClinical trialminimal sufficient balancerandomizationtreatment allocation randomness

Identifiers

PMID22287602
PMCPMC3474894

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.