Minimal sufficient balance—a new strategy to balance baseline covariates and preserve randomness of treatment allocation
Open accessAbstract
In many clinical trials, baseline covariates could affect the primary outcome. Commonly used strategies to balance baseline covariates include stratified constrained randomization and minimization. Stratification is limited to few categorical covariates. Minimization lacks the randomness of treatment allocation. Both apply only to categorical covariates. As a result, serious imbalances could occur in important baseline covariates not included in the randomization algorithm. Furthermore, randomness of treatment allocation could be significantly compromised because of the high proportion of deterministic assignments associated with stratified block randomization and minimization, potentially resulting in selection bias. Serious baseline covariate imbalances and selection biases often contribute to controversial interpretation of the trial results. The National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke recombinant tissue plasminogen activator Stroke Trial and the Captopril Prevention Project are two examples. In this article, we propose a new randomization strategy, termed the minimal sufficient balance randomization, which will dually prevent serious imbalances in all important baseline covariates, including both categorical and continuous types, and preserve the randomness of treatment allocation. Computer simulations are conducted using the data from the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke recombinant tissue plasminogen activator Stroke Trial. Serious imbalances in four continuous and one categorical covariate are prevented with a small cost in treatment allocation randomness. A scenario of simultaneously balancing 11 baseline covariates is explored with similar promising results. The proposed minimal sufficient balance randomization algorithm can be easily implemented in computerized central randomization systems for large multicenter trials.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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?
Baseline variables (age, aphasia type, severity) were balanced using the minimization method to prevent imbalance.
“Baseline variables (age, aphasia type, severity) were balanced using the minimization method to prevent imbalance16.”
From ORLA combined with telerehabilitation in patients with subacute Poststroke aphasia: a randomized controlled trial (2025) · cites this paper as [16]
The Abstract (page unavailable) identifies minimization as a strategy for balancing baseline covariates, supporting the methodological rationale. The paper does not report balancing aphasia type or severity, or establish that the citing study used minimization for those variables and age; it also says minimization applies to categorical covariates. (LLM, conf=0.88)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 41 · Cited by 87
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- [38]Saver J Yafeh B Confirmation of tPA treatment effect by baseline severity-adjusted end point reanalysis of NINDS-tPA stroke trials Stroke 2007 38 414 416 17234987
- Authors
- Zhao, W., Hill, M. D., & Palesch, Y.
- Affiliations
- Medical University of South Carolina (US)
- University of Calgary (CA)
- Corresponding author
- Zhao, Wenle
- Venue
- Statistical Methods in Medical Research
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2012-01-26
- Volume
- 24
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 989-1002
- ISSN
- 0962-2802 (ISSN-L)
- 1477-0334
- PMC
- PMC3474894
- OpenAlex
- W2124612672
- Cited by
- 87
- References
- 41
- Citations by year
- 2026: 11 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 1
- FWCI
- 4.58
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Locations
- Statistical Methods in Medical Research (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
- Funders
- National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (U01NS0059041, U01NS054630, U01NS059041)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Advanced Causal Inference Techniques
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Optimal Experimental Design Methods
- Keywords
- minimization, selection bias, continuous covariates, categorical covariates
- MeSH terms
- Aged, Female, Humans, Male, Random Allocation, Models, Statistical, Bias, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Sample Size
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