期刊
NEUROLOGY
卷 82, 期 1, 页码 77-79出版社
LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1212/01.wnl.0000438226.10353.1c
关键词
-
资金
- Canadian Institutes of Health Research [EOG 102824]
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.
作者
我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。
推荐
暂无数据