Adaptive assignment versus balanced randomization in clinical trials: A decision analysis
- 15 February 1995
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Wiley in Statistics in Medicine
- Vol. 14 (3) , 231-246
- https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.4780140302
Abstract
We compare balanced randomization with four adaptive treatment allocation procedures in a clinical trial involving two treatments. The objective is to treat as many patients in and out of the trial as effectively as possible. Randomization is a satisfactory solution to the decision problem when the disease in question is at least moderately common. Adaptive procedures are more difficult to use, but might play a role in clinical research when a substantial proportion of all patients with the disease are included in the trial.Keywords
This publication has 22 references indexed in Scilit:
- Decision making during a Phase III randomized controlled trialControlled Clinical Trials, 1994
- A Case Study of an Adaptive Clinical Trial in the Treatment of Out-Patients with Depressive DisorderJournal of the American Statistical Association, 1994
- A case for bayesianism in clinical trialsStatistics in Medicine, 1993
- The Two-Armed Bandit with Delayed ResponsesThe Annals of Statistics, 1988
- Interim Analysis in Clinical Trials: The Role of the Likelihood PrincipleThe American Statistician, 1987
- Bayesian Multistage Decision ProblemsThe Annals of Statistics, 1986
- Modified Two-Armed Bandit Strategies for Certain Clinical TrialsJournal of the American Statistical Association, 1978
- Play-the-Winner Rule and Inverse Sampling in Selecting the Better of Two Binomial PopulationsJournal of the American Statistical Association, 1971
- A Model for Selecting One of Two Medical TreatmentsJournal of the American Statistical Association, 1963
- Sequential Medical TrialsJournal of the American Statistical Association, 1963