The questionable use of unequal allocation in confirmatory trials.
expert_opinion · Level V
Where this comes from
- Record sourced from PubMed, PMID 24306005.
- Also identified by DOI 10.1212/01.wnl.0000438226.10353.1c and PMC identifier 3873626.
- No licence information is recorded for this record.
- Because redistribution is not established, this page shows the abstract only. Follow the links below for the full text.
Abstract
Randomization is the standard means for addressing known and unknown confounders within the patient population in clinical trials. Although random assignment to treatment arms on a 1:1 basis has long been the norm, many 2-armed confirmatory trials now use unequal allocation schemes where the number of patients receiving investigational interventions exceeds those in the comparator arm. In what follows, we offer 3 arguments for why investigators, institutional review boards, and data and safety monitoring boards should exercise caution when planning or reviewing 2-armed confirmatory trials involving unequal allocation ratios. We close by laying out some of the conditions where uneven allocation can be justified ethically.
Medical subject headings
- Clinical Protocols
- Random Allocation
- Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic