4.7 Article

The questionable use of unequal allocation in confirmatory trials

Journal

NEUROLOGY
Volume 82, Issue 1, Pages 77-79

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1212/01.wnl.0000438226.10353.1c

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Canadian Institutes of Health Research [EOG 102824]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

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.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available