The use of minimization in clinical trials.

Since its introduction in 1974 the use of the term Minimization has been broadened to include other algorithms. All algorithms use patient characteristics to determine the assignment that produces the best overall balance between treatment groups. They differ in whether or not they use all of the data from each previously assigned subject to assign subsequent subjects so the methods are classified as complete or partial minimization. PubMed, Citation Index and Cochrane searches determined the frequency of articles using these types of minimization and a subset was selected for detailed review regarding the adequacy of the usage and reporting of minimization. In the past 10 years usage has increased three fold over the previous decade but is still less than 2% of clinical trials. None of the studies makes maximum use of minimization and they are not following good reporting practices. Concerns about the use of minimization have involved selection bias and statistical analysis. Several modifications to minimization are suggested to reduce the possibility of selection bias so that adding randomization will rarely be required. Separating primary and secondary analyses can avoid the statistical problems that minimization poses. The two types of analyses are distinguished by opposite limiting signs, providing reliable, simplified statistical results. This will improve data utilization and make clinical trials more reproducible. Minimization should be the method of choice in assigning subjects in all clinical trials.

[1]  William F. Rosenberger,et al.  Handling Covariates in the Design of Clinical Trials. , 2008, 1102.3773.

[2]  M. Aickin A program for balancing the allocation of subjects to treatment in a clinical trial. , 1982, Computers and biomedical research, an international journal.

[3]  C B Begg,et al.  A treatment allocation procedure for sequential clinical trials. , 1980, Biometrics.

[4]  D. Moher,et al.  CONSORT for reporting randomised trials in journal and conference abstracts , 2008, The Lancet.

[5]  C. Viscoli,et al.  Stratified randomization for clinical trials. , 1999, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[6]  D. Taves,et al.  Rank-Minimization for balanced assignment of subjects in clinical trials. , 2010, Contemporary clinical trials.

[7]  S. Pocock,et al.  Sequential treatment assignment with balancing for prognostic factors in the controlled clinical trial. , 1975, Biometrics.

[8]  T. Treasure,et al.  A prospective randomized controlled trial of suction versus non-suction to the under-water seal drains following lung resection. , 2005, European journal of cardio-thoracic surgery : official journal of the European Association for Cardio-thoracic Surgery.

[9]  D. Taves Optimum biased‐coin designs for sequential treatment allocation with covariate information by A. C. Atkinson, Statistics in Medicine 1999; 18:1741–1752 , 2001, Statistics in medicine.

[10]  D. Coad,et al.  Predictability of designs which adjust for imbalances in prognostic factors , 2008 .

[11]  M. Aickin Effect of design-adaptive allocation on inference for a regression parameter: Two-group, single-covariate and double-covariate cases , 2009 .

[12]  Pocock Sj,et al.  Allocation of patients to treatment in clinical trials. , 1979 .

[13]  Marion K Campbell,et al.  The method of minimization for allocation to clinical trials. a review. , 2002, Controlled clinical trials.

[14]  A. Atkinson Optimum biased coin designs for sequential clinical trials with prognostic factors , 1982 .

[15]  Mikel Aickin,et al.  Randomization, balance, and the validity and efficiency of design-adaptive allocation methods , 2001 .

[16]  T. Treasure,et al.  Minimisation: the platinum standard for trials? , 1998, BMJ.

[17]  D R Taves,et al.  Minimization: A new method of assigning patients to treatment and control groups , 1974, Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics.