Download PDF
Methods Inf Med 2012; 51(02): 138-143
DOI: 10.3414/ME11-01-0043
Original Articles
Schattauer GmbH

Influence of Selection Bias on the Test Decision

A Simulation Study
M. Tamm
1   Department of Medical Statistics, RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany
,
E. Cramer
2   Institute of Statistics, RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany
,
L. N. Kennes
1   Department of Medical Statistics, RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany
,
N. Heussen
1   Department of Medical Statistics, RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

received:18 May 2011

accepted:09 September 2011

Publication Date:
19 January 2018 (online)

    Permissions and Reprints

Summary

Background: Selection bias arises in clinical trials by reason of selective assignment of patients to treatment groups. Even in randomized clinical trials with allocation concealment this phenomenon can occur if future assignments can be predicted due to knowledge of former allocations.

Objectives: Considering unmasked randomized clinical trials with allocation concealment the impact of selection bias on type I error rate under permuted block randomization is investigated. We aimed to extend the existing research into this topic by including practical assumptions concerning misclassification of patient characteristics to get an estimate of type I error close to clinical routine. To establish an upper bound for the type I error rate different biasing strategies of the investigator are compared first. In addition, the aspect of patient availability is considered.

Methods: To evaluate the influence of selection bias on type I error rate under several practical situations, different block sizes, selection effects, biasing strategies and success rates of patient classification were simulated using SAS.

Results: Type I error rate exceeds 5 percent significance level; it reaches values up to 21 percent. More cautious biasing strategies and misclassification of patient characteristics may diminish but cannot eliminate selection bias. The number of screened patients is about three times larger than the needed number for the trial.

Conclusions: Even in unmasked randomized clinical trials using permuted block randomization with allocation concealment the influence of selection bias must not be disregarded evaluating the test decision. It should be incorporated when designing and reporting a clinical trial.

Keywords

Selection bias - randomized clinical trials - permuted block randomization - allocation concealment - masking
 

  • References

  • 1 Pocock SJ, Lagakos SW. Practical experience of randomization in cancer trials: an international survey. Br J Cancer 1982; 46: 368-375.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Rosenberger WF, Lachin JM. Randomization in Clinical Trials: Theory and Practice. New York: Wiley; 2002.
    Google Scholar
  • 3 Friedman LM, Furberg CD, DeMets DL. Fundamentals of Clinical Trials. 3rd ed.. New York: Springer; 1998.
    Google Scholar
  • 4 Berger VW. Selection Bias and Covariate Imbalance in Randomized Clinical Trials. Chichester: Wiley; 2005.
    Google Scholar
  • 5 Berger VW. Quantifying the magnitude of baseline covariate imbalances resulting from selection bias in randomized clinical trials. Biom J 2005; 47: 119-127.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Proschan M. Influence of selection bias on type I error rate under random permuted block designs. Stat Sin 1994; 4: 219-231.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Kennes LN, Cramer E, Hilgers RD, Heussen N. The impact of selection bias on test decisions in randomized clinical trials. Stat Med 2011; 30: 2573-2581.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Altman DG, Bland JM. How to randomise. Br Med J 1999; 319: 703-704.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Pocock SJ. Clinical Trials: A Practical Approach. Chichester: Wiley; 1986.
    Google Scholar
  • 10 Follmann D, Proschan M. The effect of estimation and biasing strategies on selection bias in clinical trial with permuted blocks. J Stat Plan Inference 1994; 39: 1-17.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Ivanova A, Barrier Jr RC, Berger VW. Adjusting for observable selection bias in block randomized trials. Stat Med 2005; 24: 1537-1546.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Burton A, Altman DG, Royston P, Holder RL. The design of simulation studies in medical statistics. Stat Med 2006; 25: 4279-4292.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Kundt G. An alternative proposal for “mixed randomization” by Schulz and Grimes. Methods Inf Med 2005; 44: 572-576.
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Berger VW, Ivanova A, Deloria Knoll M. Minimizing predictability while retaining balance through the use of less restrictive randomization procedures. Stat Med 2003; 22: 3017-3028.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Kundt G. An new proposal for setting parameter values in restricted randomization methods. Methods Inf Med 2007; 46: 440-449.
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Berger VW, Christophi CA. Randomization technique, allocation concealment, masking, and susceptibility of trials to selection bias. J Mod Appl Stat Methods 2003; 2: 80-86.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Berger VW, Exner DV. Detecting selection bias in randomized clinical trials. Control Clin Trials 1999; 20: 319-327.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar