Cited by 272Statistical Methods in Clinical TrialsOptimal Experimental Design MethodsAdvanced Causal Inference Techniques

Randomization in clinical trials: Conclusions and recommendations

Open access
Lachin, John M., Matts, John P., Wei, L.J.·1988·Controlled Clinical Trials

Abstract

The statistical properties of simple (complete) randomization, permuted-block (or simply blocked) randomization, and the urn adaptive biased-coin randomization are summarized. These procedures are contrasted to covariate adaptive procedures such as minimization and to response adaptive procedures such as the play-the-winner rule. General recommendations are offered regarding the use of complete, permuted-block, or urn randomization. In a large double-masked trial, any of these procedures may be acceptable. For a given trial, the relative merits of each procedure should be carefully weighed in relation to the characteristics of the trial. Important considerations are the size of the trial, overall as well as within the smallest subgroup to be employed in a subgroup-specific analysis, whether or not the trial is to be masked, and the resources needed to perform the proper randomization-based permutational analysis.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/0197-2456(88)90049-9

Cites

15 of 15 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lachin, J. M., Matts, J. P., & Wei, L. J.
Affiliations
  • George Washington University (US)
  • University of Minnesota (US)
  • University of Michigan (US)
Corresponding author
Lachin, John M.
Venue
Controlled Clinical Trials
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
1988-12
Volume
9
Issue
4
Pages
365-374
ISSN
0197-2456 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2001307401
Cited by
272
References
13
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 20 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 16 · 2018: 13 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 17 · 2015: 13 · 2014: 13 · 2013: 13 · 2012: 13
FWCI
2.93
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Controlled Clinical Trials (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Deep Blue (University of Michigan) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (5r01am027769-05, 5r01dk039826-05)
  • National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (R01-DK-39826, N01-DK-2-2206)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Optimal Experimental Design Methods
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Advanced Causal Inference Techniques
Keywords
randomization, permuted block randomization, covariate-adaptive randomization, minimization, response-adaptive randomization, subgroup analysis
MeSH terms
Clinical Trials as Topic, Humans, Random Allocation, Research Design, Models, Statistical

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review