Skip to main content

Table 3 – Simulation results for scenarios where a non-random subset is re-randomised, outcomes differ across randomisation periods, or treatment effects carryover into subsequent randomisation periodsa

From: A re-randomisation design for clinical trials

 

Treatment effect = 0

Treatment effect = 0.4

 

Estimated treatment effect

Type I error rate (%)

Estimated treatment effect

Difference in power vs. parallel group trialb (%)

Scenario 1: Sicker patients are re-randomised

    

 • Unadjusted for patient effects

0.0

5.1

0.4

−0.4

 • Adjusted for patient effectsc

0.0

5.2

0.4

+10.8

Scenario 2: Patients who experienced a poor outcome are more likely to be re-randomised

    

 • Unadjusted for patient effects

0.0

4.4

0.4

−1.2

 • Adjusted for patient effectsc

0.0

4.8

0.4

+6.1

Scenario 3: Patients who received the intervention are more likely to be re-randomised

    

 • Unadjusted for patient effects

0.0

5.0

0.4

−0.3

 • Adjusted for patient effectsc

0.0

4.8

0.4

+7.3

Scenario 4: Patients who received the control are more likely to be re-randomised

    

 • Unadjusted for patient effects

0.0

4.7

0.4

−0.3

 • Adjusted for patient effectsc

0.0

5.4

0.4

+7.0

Scenario 5: Patients’ health status changes for their subsequent re-randomisationd

    

 • Unadjusted for patient effects

0.0

5.3

0.4

−1.0

 • Adjusted for patient effectsc

0.0

5.1

0.4

+13.9

Scenario 6: The intervention effect carries over into subsequent randomisation periods

    

 • Unadjusted for patient effects

NA

NA

0.4

−2.9

 • Adjusted for patient effectsc

NA

NA

0.3

−22.9

 • Adjusted for patient effectsc, and adjusted for number of previous allocations to the intervention

NA

NA

0.4

+13.3

Scenario 7: The intervention and control effects carry over differentially into subsequent randomisation periods

    

 • Unadjusted for patient effects

NA

NA

0.4

−10.3

 • Adjusted for patient effectsc

NA

NA

0.3

−29.8

 • Adjusted for patient effectsc, and adjusted for number of previous allocations to the intervention

NA

NA

0.5

+18.4

 • Adjusted for patient effectsc, and adjusted for both the number of previous allocations to the intervention and number of previous allocations to the control

NA

NA

0.4

+10.0

  1. aThe ICC was set to 0.50 for all scenarios. The number of observations was 200 for scenario 1 (100 patients randomised once, 25 patients randomised 4 times), 200 on average for scenario 2 (approximately 100 patients randomised once, 50 randomised twice), 195 on average for scenarios 3 and 4 (approximately 65 patients randomised once, 65 patients randomised twice), and 200 for scenarios 5, 6, and 7 (50 patients randomised four times)
  2. bPower for the parallel group trial was set at 80 %
  3. cAnalyses adjusted for patient-effects using a mixed-effects linear regression model, with a random intercept for patient
  4. dBoth analyses adjusted for randomisation period as an indicator variable