Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41275089›Full record

ReviewBMC medical research methodology2025

Randomization in the age of platform trials: unexplored challenges and some potential solutions.

Olga Kuznetsova, Jennifer Ross, Daniel Bodden, Freda Cooner, Jonathan Chipman, Peter Jacko, Johannes Krisam, Yuqun Abigail Luo, Tobias Mielke, David S Robertson and 4 more

Erratum issuedAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in BMC medical research methodology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

14 authors.

Olga KuznetsovaMerck & Co., Inc., Rahway, NJ, USA.
Jennifer RossAlmac Group, Souderton, PA, USA.
Daniel BoddenRWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany.
Freda CoonerUS Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, MD, USA.
Jonathan ChipmanUniversity of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, UT, USA.
Peter JackoBerry Consultants, Abingdon, Oxfordshire, UK & Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK.
Johannes KrisamBoehringer-Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co. KG, Biberach, Germany.
Yuqun Abigail LuoUS Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, MD, USA.
Tobias MielkeJanssen-Cilag GmbH, Neuss, Germany.
David S RobertsonMRC Biostatistics Unit, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Yevgen RyeznikDepartment of Mathematics, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden. yevgen.ryeznik@math.uu.se.
Sofia S VillarMRC Biostatistics Unit, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Wenle ZhaoMedical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, USA.
Oleksandr SverdlovNovartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, East Hanover, NJ, USA. alex.sverdlov@novartis.com.

Funding

StrokeNet Thrombectomy Endovascular Platform (STEP) OT2NS129366 · NINDS · MEDICAL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA · PI COLIN Pieter DERDEYN, Jordan J. Elm · 2022 to 2026
$20.5M
Workshop to Identify Collaborative Project(s) for the NIH StrokeNet and the Japan NEtwork for Clinical Stroke Trials (NECST)U01NS087748 · NINDS · MEDICAL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA · PI Catherine R. Dillon, Jordan J. Elm · 2014 to 2026
$14.1M
NINDS NIH HHS OT2 NS129366NINDS NIH HHS U01 NS087748
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

While platform trials have several benefits with their adaptive features, randomization challenges become of central relevance to the design and execution of a platform trial. This paper intends to address these challenges and explore some potential solutions. A platform type of clinical trial is a clinical trial design where multiple interventions are investigated simultaneously often against partly or fully shared controls, with new treatment arms added and completed treatment arms removed. Unequal allocation is often used in platform trials to improve statistical efficiency, deliver benefits to trial participants, and control the speed of enrollment in different treatment arms. Changes to the allocation ratio may be required after an interim analysis even when the number of treatment arms remains constant, for example, in a platform trial with response-adaptive randomization. To deliver the design efficiencies promised by the carefully optimized allocation ratio or simply to ensure a pre-determined allocation ratio, randomization methods that keep allocation proportions close to the target allocation ratio throughout randomization are helpful. Other situations commonly occurring in platform trials require special considerations for randomization methods and in some cases new classes of randomization methods. Such specific platform features include the requirement to accommodate differences in eligibility for different treatments, the need to ensure partial blinding with a 2-step randomization when mode of administration for different interventions is conspicuously different and full blinding is unfeasible, the objective to balance through dynamic randomization multiple prognostic factors or the need to accommodate limited drug supplies at the numerous trial centers, among others. The key to a successful execution of a complex randomization in the platform trial is the expert design of the Interactive Response Technology (IRT) system, where the system is built at the master protocol level and existing and potential randomization needs are incorporated from the outset. An additional, often overlooked, challenge when working with unequal allocation ratios and randomization methods to attain these, is the importance of preserving the unconditional allocation ratio at every allocation. Failure to do so might lead to a selection and evaluation bias even in double-blind trials, accidental bias, and reduced power of the re-randomization test.

Indexed as

Randomized Controlled Trials as TopicResearch DesignHumansRandom AllocationAdaptive designPlatform trialRandomizationUnequal allocation

Identifiers

PMID41275089
PMCPMC12670786

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.