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
Review
. 2019 Jun;72(3):221-232.
doi: 10.4097/kja.19049. Epub 2019 Apr 1.

Randomization in clinical studies

Affiliations
Review

Randomization in clinical studies

Chi-Yeon Lim et al. Korean J Anesthesiol. 2019 Jun.

Erratum in

  • Erratum: Randomization in clinical studies.
    Lim CY, In J. Lim CY, et al. Korean J Anesthesiol. 2019 Aug;72(4):396. doi: 10.4097/kja.19049.e1. Epub 2019 Jul 30. Korean J Anesthesiol. 2019. PMID: 31366189 Free PMC article. No abstract available.

Abstract

Randomized controlled trial is widely accepted as the best design for evaluating the efficacy of a new treatment because of the advantages of randomization (random allocation). Randomization eliminates accidental bias, including selection bias, and provides a base for allowing the use of probability theory. Despite its importance, randomization has not been properly understood. This article introduces the different randomization methods with examples: simple randomization; block randomization; adaptive randomization, including minimization; and response-adaptive randomization. Ethics related to randomization are also discussed. The study is helpful in understanding the basic concepts of randomization and how to use R software.

Keywords: Adaptive randomization; Minimization; Random allocation; Randomization; Randomized controlled trial; Restrictive randomization; Simple randomization.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.

Figures

Fig. 1.
Fig. 1.
Influence of sample size ratio in two groups on power (difference (d) = 0.9, two-tailed, significant level = 0.05). The dashed line indicates the same sample size in two groups (n = 20) and maximized power.
Fig. 2.
Fig. 2.
Probability curves of imbalance between two groups for complete randomization as a function of total sample size (n). When n = 40, there is a 52.7% chance of imbalance beyond 10% (allocation ratio 45%–55%) (point A). When n = 200, there is a 15.7% chance of imbalance (point B), but n = 400 results in only 4.6% chance of imbalance (point C).
Fig. 3.
Fig. 3.
Example of stratification with three prognostic factors (site, sex, and age band). Eventually, randomization with 12 strata should be accomplished using 12 separate randomization processes. C: control group, T: treatment group.

References

    1. Altman DG. Randomisation. BMJ. 1991;302:1481–2. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Moher D, Hopewell S, Schulz KF, Montori V, Gøtzsche PC, Devereaux PJ, et al. CONSORT 2010 explanation and elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMJ. 2010;340:c869. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Kang H. Random allocation and dynamic allocation randomization. Anesth Pain Med. 2017;12:201–12.
    1. Rosenberger WF, Lachin JM. Randomization in Clinical Trials. 2nd ed. Hoboken: Wiley; 2016. pp. 1–14.
    1. Altman DG, Bland JM. Statistics notes. Treatment allocation in controlled trials: why randomise? BMJ. 1999;318:1209. - PMC - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources