ArticlePharmaceutical statistics
Mathematical programming tools for randomization purposes in small two-arm clinical trials: A case study with real data.
Article in Pharmaceutical statistics. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Mathematical programming tools for randomization purposes in small two-arm clinical trials: A case study with real data.Pharmaceutical statisticsArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Modern randomization methods in clinical trials are invariably adaptive, meaning that the assignment of the next subject to a treatment group uses the accumulated information in the trial. Some of the recent adaptive randomization methods use mathematical programming to construct attractive clinical trials that balance the group features, such as their sizes and covariate distributions of their subjects. We review some of these methods and compare their performance with common covariate-adaptive randomization methods for small clinical trials. We introduce an energy distance measure that compares the discrepancy between the two groups using the joint distribution of the subjects' covariates. This metric is more appealing than evaluating the discrepancy between the groups using their marginal covariate distributions. Using numerical experiments, we demonstrate the advantages of the mathematical programming methods under the new measure. In the supplementary material, we provide R codes to reproduce our study results and facilitate comparisons of different randomization procedures.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.