Chronological Bias in Randomized Clinical Trials Arising from Different Types of Unobserved Time Trends

 

 Buy Article Permissions and Reprints

Summary

Background: In clinical trials patients are commonly recruited sequentially over time incurring the risk of chronological bias due to (unobserved) time trends. To minimize the risk of chronological bias, a suitable randomization procedure should be chosen.

Objectives: Considering different time trend scenarios, we aim at a detailed evaluation of the extent of chronological bias under permuted block randomization in order to provide recommendations regarding the choice of randomization at the design stage of a clinical trial and to assess the maximum extent of bias for a realized sequence in the analysis stage.

Methods: For the assessment of chronological bias we consider linear, logarithmic and stepwise trends illustrating typical changes during recruitment in clinical practice. Bias and variance of the treatment effect estimator as well as the empirical type I error rate when applying the t-test are investigated. Different sample sizes, block sizes and strengths of time trends are considered.

Results: Using large block sizes, a notable bias exists in the estimate of the treatment effect for specific sequences. This results in a heavily inflated type I error for realized worst-case sequences and an enlarged mean squared error of the treatment effect estimator. Decreasing the block size restricts these effects of time trends. Already applying permuted block randomization with two blocks instead of the random allocation rule achieves a good reduction of the mean squared error and of the inflated type I error. Averaged over all sequences, the type I error of the t-test is far below the nominal significance level due to an overestimated variance.

Conclusions: Unobserved time trends can induce a strong bias in the treatment effect estimate and in the test decision. Therefore, already in the design stage of a clinical trial a suitable randomization procedure should be chosen. According to our results, small block sizes should be preferred, but also medium block sizes are sufficient to restrict chronological bias to an acceptable extent if other contrary aspects have to be considered (e.g. serious risk of selection bias). Regardless of the block size, a blocked ANOVA should be used because the t-test is far too conservative, even for weak time trends.

• References

• 1 Matts JP, Mc Hugh RB. Analysis of accrual randomized clinical trials with balanced groups in strata. J Chronic Dis 1978; 31: 725-740.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 2 Berger VW, Ivanova A, Knoll MD. Minimizing predictability while retaining balance through the use of less restrictive randomization procedures. Stat Med 2003; 22: 3017-3028.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 3 Efron B. Forcing a sequential experiment to be balanced. Biometrika 1971; 58: 403-417.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 4 EMA. CHMP/EWP/83561/2005- Guideline on clinical trials in small populations Website, 2006. Available from: http://www.ema.europa.eu [Accessed April 2014]
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 5 Friedman LM, Furberg CD, DeMets DL. Fundamentals of Clinical Trials. 3rd ed.. New York: Springer; 1998
  Google Scholar
• 6 ICH E9 Statistical principles for clinical trials. Website, 1998. Available from: http://www.ich.org [Accessed April 2014]
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 7 Devereaux PJ, Bhandari M, Clarke M, Montori VM, Cook DJ, Yusuf S. et al. Need for expertise based randomised controlled trials. BMJ 2005; 330: 88
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 8 Green SB. Patient heterogeneity and the need for randomized clinical trials. Control Clin Trials 1982; 3: 189-198.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 9 Altman DG, Royston JP. The hidden effect of time. Stat Med 1988; 7: 629-637.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 10 Kalish LA, Begg CB. The impact of treatment allocation procedures on nominal significance levels and bias. Control Clin Trials 1987; 8: 121-135.
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 11 Peto R. Discussion of ‘On the allocation of treatments in sequential medical trials’ by J. A. Bather and ‘The search for optimality in clinical trials’ by P. Armitage. Int Stat Rev 1985; 53: 31-34.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 12 Byar DP, Simon RM, Friedewald WT, Schlesselman JJ, DeMets DL, Ellenberg JH. et al. Randomized clinical trials. Perspectives on some recent ideas. N Engl J Med 1976; 295: 74-80.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 13 Rosenberger WF, Lachin JM. Randomization in Clinical Trials: Theory and Practice. New York: Wiley; 2002
  Google Scholar
• 14 Proschan M. Influence of selection bias on type I error rate under random permuted block designs. Stat Sin 1994; 4: 219-231.
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 15 Berger VW. Selection Bias and Covariate Imbalance in Randomized Clinical Trials. Chichester: Wiley; 2005
  Google Scholar
• 16 Kennes LN, Cramer E, Hilgers RD, Heussen N. The impact of selection bias on the test decision in randomized clinical trials. Stat Med 2011; 30: 2573-2581.
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 17 Tamm M, Cramer E, Kennes LN, Heussen N. Influence of selection bias on the test decision. A simulation study. Methods Inf Med 2012; 51: 138-143.
  Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 18 Zhao W, Weng Y, Wu Q, Palesch Y. Quantitative comparison of randomization designs in sequential clinical trials based on treatment balance and allocation randomness. Pharm Stat 2012; 11: 39-48.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 19 Rosenkranz GK. The impact of randomization on the analysis of clinical trials. Stat Med 2011; 30: 3475-3487.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 20 Spilker B, Cramer JA. Patient Recruitment in Clinical Trials. New York: Raven Press; 1992
  Google Scholar
• 21 Burton A, Altman DG, Royston P, Holder RL. The design of simulation studies in medical statistics. Stat Med 2006; 25: 4279-4292.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 22 Matts JP and Lachin JM. Properties of permuted-block randomization in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials 1988; 9: 327-344.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 23 Simon R, Simon NR. Using randomization tests to preserve type I error with response-adaptive and covariate-adaptive randomization. Stat Probab Lett 2011; 81: 767-772.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 24 Soares JF, Wu CF. Some restricted randomization rules in sequential designs. Commun Stat Theory Methods 1983; 12: 2017-2034.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 25 Kundt G. An alternative proposal for “mixed randomization” by Schulz and Grimes. Methods Inf Med 2005; 44: 572-576.
  Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 26 Zhao W, Weng Y. Block urn design - A new randomization algorithm for sequential trials with two or more treatments and balanced or unbalanced allocation. Contemp Clin Trials 2011; 32: 953-961.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 27 Kuznetsova OM, Tymofyeyev Y. Brick tunnel randomization for unequal allocation to two or more treatment groups. Stat Med 2011; 30: 812-824.
  PubMedGoogle Scholar