Considerations in the paper by Proschan,Brittain,and Kammerman are not an argument against minimization. In response to Vance W Berger ‘Minimization: not all it’s cracked up to be’,Clin Trials 2011;8: 443
Restricted accessLetterFirst published online June, 2012
Considerations in the paper by Proschan,Brittain,and Kammerman are not an argument against minimization. In response to Vance W Berger ‘Minimization: not all it’s cracked up to be’,Clin Trials 2011;8: 443
BergerVW. Minimization: Not all it’s cracked up to be. Clin Trials2011; 8: 443.
2.
ProschanMBrittainEKammermanL. Minimize the use of minimization with unequal allocation. Biometrics2011; 67: 1135–41.
3.
KuznetsovaOMTymofyeyevY. Preserving the allocation ratio at every allocation with biased coin randomization and minimization in studies with unequal allocation. Stat Med2012; 31(8): 701–23.
4.
BergerVWIvanovaADeloria-KnollM. Minimizing predictability while retaining balance through the use of less restrictive randomization procedures. Stat Med2003; 22(19): 3017–28.
5.
SalamaIIvanovaAQaqishB. Efficient generation of constrained block allocation sequences. Stat Med2008; 27: 1421–28.
6.
KuznetsovaOTymofyeyevY. Brick tunnel randomization for unequal allocation to two or more treatment groups. Stat Med2011; 30: 812–24.
7.
KuznetsovaOMTymofyeyevY. Expansion of the modified Zelen’s approach randomization and dynamic randomization with partial block supplies at the centers to unequal allocation. Contemp Clin Trials2011; 32: 962–72.
8.
KuznetsovaOMTymofyeyevY. Shift in re-randomization distribution with conditional randomization test. In preparation for submission to Pharmaceutical Statistics.
9.
ZelenM. The randomization and stratification of patients to clinical trials. J Chron Dis1974; 27: 365–75.
10.
EfronB. Forcing a sequential experiment to be balanced. Biometrika1971; 58: 403–17.
