An evaluation of constrained randomization for the design and analysis of group‐randomized trials. (23rd November 2015)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Li, Fan; Lokhnygina, Yuliya; Murray, David M.; Heagerty, Patrick J.; DeLong, Elizabeth R.
• Is Part Of: Statistics in medicine. Volume 35:Number 10(2016)
• Page Start: 1565
• Page End: 1579
• Publication Date: 2015-11-23
• Subjects: constrained randomization -- group‐randomized trial -- permutation test -- model‐based F‐test -- candidate set size -- balance metric; Medical statistics -- Periodicals; Statistique médicale -- Périodiques; Statistiques médicales -- Périodiques; 610.727
• DOI: 10.1002/sim.6813
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0277-6715

Abstract

Abstract : In group‐randomized trials, a frequent practical limitation to adopting rigorous research designs is that only a small number of groups may be available, and therefore, simple randomization cannot be relied upon to balance key group‐level prognostic factors across the comparison arms. Constrained randomization is an allocation technique proposed for ensuring balance and can be used together with a permutation test for randomization‐based inference. However, several statistical issues have not been thoroughly studied when constrained randomization is considered. Therefore, we used simulations to evaluate key issues including the following: the impact of the choice of the candidate set size and the balance metric used to guide randomization; the choice of adjusted versus unadjusted analysis; and the use of model‐based versus randomization‐based tests. We conducted a simulation study to compare the type I error and power of the F‐test and the permutation test in the presence of group‐level potential confounders. Our results indicate that the adjusted F‐test and the permutation test perform similarly and slightly better for constrained randomization relative to simple randomization in terms of power, and the candidate set size does not substantially affect their power. Under constrained randomization, however, the unadjusted F‐test is conservative, while the unadjusted permutation test carries the desired type I error rate as long as the candidate set size is not too small; the unadjusted permutation test is consistently more powerful than the unadjusted F‐test and gains power as candidate set size changes. Finally, we caution against the inappropriate specification of permutation distribution under constrained randomization. An ongoing group‐randomized trial is used as an illustrative example for the constrained randomization design. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.