Review Articles

Testing hypotheses under covariate-adaptive randomisation and additive models

Ting Ye

Department of Statistics, University of Wisconsin Madison, WI, USA

Tye27@wisc.Edu

Pages 96-101 | Received 05 Apr. 2018, Accepted 13 May. 2018, Published online: 25 May. 2018,
  • Abstract
  • Full Article
  • References
  • Citations

ABSTRACT

Covariate-adaptive randomisation has a long history of applications in clinical trials. Shao, Yu, and Zhong [(2010). A theory for testing hypotheses under covariate-adaptive randomization. Biometrika, 97, 347–360] and Shao and Yu [(2013). Validity of tests under covariate-adaptive biased coin randomization and generalized linear models. Biometrics, 69, 960–969] showed that the simple t-test is conservative under covariate-adaptive biased coin (CABC) randomisation in terms of type I error, and proposed a valid test using the bootstrap. Under a general additive model with CABC randomisation, we construct a calibrated t-test that shares the same property as the bootstrap method in Shao et al. (2010), but do not need large computation required by the bootstrap method. Some simulation results are presented to show the finite sample performance of the calibrated t-test.

References

  1. Aickin M. (2001). Randomization, balance, and the validity and efficiency of design-adaptive allocation methods. Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference, 94, 97119. doi: 10.1016/S0378-3758(00)00228-7 [Google Scholar]
  2. Aickin M. (2002). Beyond randomization. The Journal of Alternative Medicine, 8, 765772[Google Scholar]
  3. Brikett N. J. (1985). Adaptive allocation in randomized controlled trials. Controlled Clinical Trials, 6, 146155. doi: 10.1016/0197-2456(85)90120-5 [Google Scholar]
  4. Efron B. (1971). Forcing a sequential experiment to be balanced. Biometrika, 58, 403417. doi: 10.1093/biomet/58.3.403 [Google Scholar]
  5. Forsythe A. B. (1987). Validity and power of tests when groups have been balanced for prognostic factors. Computational Statistics and Data Analysis, 5, 193200. doi: 10.1016/0167-9473(87)90015-6 [Google Scholar]
  6. Hagino A., Hamada C., Yoshimura I., Ohashi Y., Sakamoto J., & Nakazato H. (2004). Statistical comparison of random allocation methods in cancer clinical trials. Controlled Clinical Trials, 25, 572584. doi: 10.1016/j.cct.2004.08.004 [Google Scholar]
  7. Kalish L. A., & Begg C. B. (1985). Treatment allocation methods in clinical trials: A review. Statistics in Medicine, 4, 129144. doi: 10.1002/sim.4780040204 [Google Scholar]
  8. Ma W., Hu F., & Zhang L. (2015). Testing hypotheses of covariate-adaptive randomized clinical trials. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 110(510), 669680. doi: 10.1080/01621459.2014.922469 [Taylor & Francis Online], [Google Scholar]
  9. Pocock S. J., & Simon R. (1975). Sequential treatment assignment with balancing for prognostic factors in the controlled clinical trial. Biometrics, 31, 103115. doi: 10.2307/2529712 [Google Scholar]
  10. Shao J., & Yu X. (2013). Validity of tests under covariate-adaptive biased coin randomization and generalized linear models. Biometrics, 69, 960969. doi: 10.1111/biom.12062 [Google Scholar]
  11. Shao J., Yu X., & Zhong B. (2010). A theory for testing hypotheses under covariate-adaptive randomization. Biometrika, 97, 347360. doi: 10.1093/biomet/asq014 [Google Scholar]
  12. Taves D. R. (1974). Minimization: A new method of assigning patients to treatment and control groups. Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics, 15, 443453. doi: 10.1002/cpt1974155443 [Google Scholar]
  13. Weir C. J., & Lees K. R. (2003). Comparison of stratification and adaptive methods for treatment allocation in an acute stroke clinical trial. Statistics in Medicine, 22, 705726. doi: 10.1002/sim.1366 [Google Scholar]