Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2011 Jan 1;141(1):474-478.
doi: 10.1016/j.jspi.2010.06.023.

A simplified formula for quantification of the probability of deterministic assignments in permuted block randomization

Affiliations

A simplified formula for quantification of the probability of deterministic assignments in permuted block randomization

Wenle Zhao et al. J Stat Plan Inference. .

Abstract

Open label and single blinded randomized controlled clinical trials are vulnerable to selection bias when the next treatment assignment is predictable based on the randomization algorithm and the preceding assignment history. While treatment predictability is an issue for all constrained randomization algorithms, deterministic assignments are unique to permuted block randomization. Deterministic assignments may lead to treatment predictability with certainty and selection bias, which could inflate the type I error and hurts the validity of trial results. It is important to accurately evaluate the probability of deterministic assignments in permuted block randomization, so proper protection measures can be implemented. For trials with number of treatment arms T = 2 and a balance block size B = 2m, Matts and Lachin indicated that the probability of deterministic assignment is 1m+1. For more general situations, with T ≥ 2 and a block size B=∑j=1Tmj, Dupin-Spriet provided a formula, which can be written as 1B∑j=1T∑i=1mj∏k=1imj-k+1B-k+1. This formula involves extensive calculation in evaluation. In this paper, we simplified this formula to 1B∑j=1TmjB-mj+1 for general scenarios and 1B-m+1 for trials with a balanced allocation. Through mathematical induction we show the equivalence of the formulas. While the new formula is numerically equivalent to Dupin-Spriet's formula, the simple format not only is easier for evaluation, but also is clearer in describing the impact of parameters T and m(i) on the probability of deterministic assignments.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Proportion of determinative assignment in permuted block randomizaiton for balanced trials
Figure 2
Figure 2
Treatment allocation ratio v.s. probability of deterministic assignment for two-arm trials

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Berger VW, Exner DV. Detecting selection bias in randomized clinical trials. Control Clin Trials. 1999;20:319–327. - PubMed
    1. Berger VW, et al. Minimizing predictability while retaining balance through the use of less restrictive randomization procedures. Stat Med. 2003;22:3017–3028. - PubMed
    1. Berger VW. Quantifying the magnitude of baseline covariate imbalances resulting from selection bias in randomized clinical trials. Biom J. 2005;47:119–127. - PubMed
    1. Berger VM. Selection bias and covariate imbalances in randomized clinical trials. John Wieley & Sons; 2005. - PubMed
    1. Berger VW. A review of methods for ensuring the comparability of comparison groups in randomized clinical trials. Rev Recent Clin Trials. 2006;1:81–86. - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources