ArticlePloS one2026
Assessing allocation bias in stratified clinical trials with multi-component endpoints evaluated using the stratified Wei-Lachin test.
Article in PloS one, 2026. 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.
- Does randomization matter in rare disease clinical trials.PloS one · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundA common issue in rare disease stratified clinical trials with multi-component endpoints is allocation bias, as they frequently lack blinding. Allocation bias arises when future treatment allocations can be predicted from prior ones, potentially leading to patients with specific characteristics being preferentially assigned to either the treatment or control group. Despite its potential impact, the effect of allocation bias on inference in these trials remain unstudied.
methodsTo model biased patient responses, we derived an allocation biasing policy tailored to stratified trials with multi-component endpoints. Using this policy, we assessed the impact of allocation bias by evaluating type I error rates of a stratified version of the Wei-Lachin test, integrating Fleiss's stratified test with the Wei-Lachin test, when allocation bias was present but ignored during inference.
resultsIgnoring allocation bias when applying the stratified Wei-Lachin test results in an inflation of the type I error rate, exceeding the 5% significance level. The amount of inflation depends on the number of strata, number of endpoint components and the chosen randomization procedure. Less restrictive randomization procedures, such as the stratified Big Stick Design, exhibited the lowest type I error inflation, while stratified Permuted Block Randomization, results in highest inflation. The inflation of the type I error increases with the number of strata included. An increasing number of independent endpoint components is also associated with higher inflation.
conclusionAllocation bias threatens the validity of stratified clinical trials with multi-component endpoints evaluated using the stratified Wei-Lachin test and should be mitigated through careful study planning. Ensure the number of patients in each stratum is not smaller than the number of strata, restrict the number of endpoint components to those essential for the study's objectives, and use randomization procedures that allow for some imbalances, such as the Big Stick Design, to reduce allocation predictability.
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.