Skip to main content
Log in

Analysis of Data with Imbalance in the Baseline Outcome Variable for Randomized Clinical Trials

  • Published:
Drug information journal : DIJ / Drug Information Association Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In randomized clinical trials, substantial imbalance in the baseline outcome variable may occur by chance. Inference on treatment effect may be confounded by such imbalance if not properly accounted for. The usual unadjusted analysis may be conditionally biased with an inflated Type I error rate or reduced power conditioning on the baseline imbalance in the observed sample. This paper reviews methods for baseline adjustment with emphasis on the analysis of co-variance (ANCOVA) model with the baseline outcome as a covariate. Many issues on the ANCOVA model, including the nature of the adjustment, unconditional and conditional properties of treatment effect estimate from the ANCOVA, and baseline with measurement errors are discussed. In summary, the ANCOVA model with the baseline outcome as a covariate is more efficient unconditionally, and has better statistical properties conditionally, than the usual analysis of variance (ANOVA) analysis based on either posttreat-ment outcome or change from baseline and, therefore, is recommended. A real-life data set is analyzed and used to illustrate the unconditional and conditional properties.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Altman DG. Comparability of randomized groups. Statistician. 1985;34:125–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Chuang-Stein C, Tong DM. The impact and implication of regression to the mean on the design and analysis of medical investigations. Stat Methods Med Research. 1997;6:115–128.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Overall JE, Magee KN. Directional baseline differences and type I error probabilities in randomized clinical trials. J Biopharm Stat. 1992;2:189–203.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Senn SJ. Covariate imbalance and random allocation in clinical trials. Stat Med. 1989;8:467–475.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Rothman KJ. Epidemiologic methods in clinical trials. Cancer. 1977;39:1771–1775.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Chambless LE, Roeback JR. Methods for assessing difference between groups in change when initial measurement is subject to intra-individual variation. Stat Med. 1993;12:1213–1237.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Begg CB. Significance tests of covariate imbalance in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials. 1990;11:223–225.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Permutt T. Testing for imbalance of covariate in controlled experiments. Stat Med. 1990;9:1455–1462.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Crager MR. Analysis of covariance in parallel-group clinical trials with pretreatment baselines. Biometrics. 1987;43:895–901.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Carroll RJ, Gallo P, Gleser LJ. Comparison of least squares and error-in-variable regression, with special reference to randomized analysis of covariance. J Am Stat Assoc. 1985;80(392):929–932.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Cochran WG. Errors of measurement in statistics. Technometrics. 1968;10(4):637–666.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Carroll RJ. Covariance analysis in generalized linear measurement error models. Stat Med. 1989;8:1075–1093.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Senn S. Letters to Editor: method for assessing dif ference between groups in change when initial mea surement is subject to intra-individual variation. Stat Med. 1994;13:2280–2283.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Senn S. Letters to Editor: In defense of analysis of covariance: a reply to Chambless and Roeback. Stat Med. 1995;14:2283–2288.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Reichardt CS, Trochim WMK, Cappelleri JC. Report of the death of regression discontinuity analysis are greatly exaggerated. Evaluation Review. 1995;19: 39–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Senn S. Testing for baseline balance in clinical trials. Stat Med. 1994;13:1715–1726.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Weigel RM, Narvaez M. Multiple regression analysis of differential response to treatment in randomized controlled clinical trials. Control Clin Trials. 1991;12:378–394.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Knoke JD. Nonparametric analysis of covariance for comparing change in randomized studies with baseline values subject to error. Biometrics. 1991; 47:523–533.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. McKean JW, Vidmar TJ. A comparison of two rank-based methods for the analysis of linear models. Am Statistician. 1994;48:(3):220–229.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Maxwell SE. Covariate imbalance and conditional size: dependence on model-based adjustments. Stat Med. 1993;12:101–109.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Tukey JW. Tightening the clinical trial. Control Clin Trials. 1993;14:266–285.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Atiqullah M. The robustness of the covariance analysis of a one-way classification. Biometrika. 1964; 51:365–372.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Maxwell SE, Delaney HD, Dill CA. Another look at ANCOVA versus blocking. Psychological Bull. 1984;95(1):136–147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Lair N. Further comparative analysis of pre-test post-test research design. Am Statistician. 1983(Novem-ber);37(4):329–330.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Chesher A. Non-normal variation and regression to the mean. Stat Methods Med Research. 1997;6:147–166.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Appleton DR, French JM, Vanderpump MPJ. Ignoring a covariate: an example of Simpson’s paradox. Am Statistician. 1996;50:340–341.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Beach ML, Meier P. Choosing covariates in the analysis of clinical trials. Control Clin Trials. 1989;10: 161S–175S.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Meier P. Stratification in the design of a clinical trial. Control Clin Trials. 1981;1:355–361.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Senn SJ. Regression to the mean. Stat Methods Med Research. 1997;6:99–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Wei, L., Zhang, J. Analysis of Data with Imbalance in the Baseline Outcome Variable for Randomized Clinical Trials. Ther Innov Regul Sci 35, 1201–1214 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1177/009286150103500417

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/009286150103500417

Key Words

Navigation