Skip to main content
Log in

A Method of Biased Coin Randomization, Its Implementation, and Its Validation

  • Published:
Drug information journal : DIJ / Drug Information Association Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Many randomized studies in small patient populations and studies in early research (such as Phase I and Phase II trials) have small to moderate numbers of patients. In such studies the use of simple randomization or blocking on only one or two factors can easily result in imbalance between treatment groups with respect to one or more potentially prognostic variables. Baseline adaptive randomization methods (such as biased coin methods) can be used to virtually guarantee balance between treatment groups with respect to several covariates. One such method, which has been implemented in Splus, is discussed in detail. The impact of the baseline adaptive randomization method on the nominal distribution of the analysis of covariance test statistic is also discussed. Rather than relying solely on the assumption that the distribution of the analysis of covariance test statistic has its nominal distribution when adaptive randomization is used, a mechanism in Splus has been developed to perform a randomization test taking into account all of the constraints imposed by the chosen adaptive randomization procedure.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Lord FM. A paradox in the interpretation of group comparisons. Psychological Bull. 1967;68:304–305.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Harville DA. Nearly optimal allocation of experimental units using observed covariate values. Technometrics. 1974;16:589–599.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Pocock SJ, Simon R. Sequential treatment assignment with balancing for prognostic factors in the controlled clinical trial. Biometrics. 1975;31:103–115.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Taves DR. Minimization: A new method of assigning patients to treatment and control groups. Clin Pharmacol Therapeutics. 1974;15:443–453.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Pocock SJ. Allocation of patients to treatments in clinical trials. Biometrics. 1979;35:183–197.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Simon R. The Consultant’s Forum: Restricted randomization designs in clinical trials. Biometrics. 1979;35:503–512.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Begg CB, Iglewicz B. A treatment allocation procedure for sequential clinical trials. Biometrics. 1980;36:81–90.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Atkinson AC. Optimum biased coin designs for sequential clinical trials with prognostic factors. Biometrika. 1982;69:61–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Smythe RT, Wei LI. Significance tests with restricted randomization design. Biometrika. 1983;70:496–500.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Smith RL. Sequential treatment allocation using biased coin designs. J R Stat Soc B. 1984;46(3):519–543.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Halpern J, Brown BW. Sequential treatment allocation procedures in clinical trials—with particular attention to the analysis of results for the biased coin design. Stat Med. 1986;5:211–229.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Hanningan JF, Brown BW. Adaptive randomization biased coindesign: experience in a cooperative group clinical trial. Technical Report No. 74, Division of Biostatistics, Stanford University, Stanford, CA.

  13. Hollander M, Pena E. Nonparametric test under restricted treatment-assignment rules. J Am Stat Assoc. 1988;83:1144–1151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Begg CB. On inferences from Wei’s biased coin design for clinical trails. Biometrika. 1990;77(3):467–484.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Efron B. Forcing a sequential experiment to be balanced. Biometrika. 1971;58:403–417.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Efron B. Randomizing and balancing a complicated sequential experiment. In: Biostatistics Casebook. Miller Jr RG, Efron B. Brown Jr BW, Moses LE, eds. New York: Wiley; 1980:19–30.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Becker RA, Chambers JM, Wilks AR. The New S Language: A Programming Environment for Data Analysis and Graphics. Pacific Grove, California: Wadsworth & Brooks/Cole; 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Forsythe AB, Stitt FJ. Randomization or minimization in the treatment assignment of patient trials: validity and power of tests. Technical Report 28, Health Sciences Computing Facility, University of California, Los Angeles; 1977.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Therneau T. How many stratification factors are “too many” to use in a randomization plan? Control Clin Trials. 1993;14:98–108.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Frane, J.W. A Method of Biased Coin Randomization, Its Implementation, and Its Validation. Ther Innov Regul Sci 32, 423–432 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1177/009286159803200213

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/009286159803200213

Key Words

Navigation