## Abstract

The randomized controlled clinical trial is the standard by which all trials are judged. In the simplest case, randomization is a process by which each participant has the same chance of being assigned to either intervention or control. An example would be the toss of a coin, in which heads indicates intervention group and tails indicates control group. Even in the more complex randomization strategies, the element of chance underlies the allocation process. Of course, neither trial participant nor investigator should know what the assignment will be before the participant’s decision to enter the study. Otherwise, the benefits of randomization can be lost. The role that randomization plays in clinical trials has been discussed in Chap. 5 as well as by numerous authors [1–12]. While not all accept that randomization is essential [10, 11], most agree it is the best method for achieving comparability between study groups, and the most appropriate basis for statistical inference [1, 3].

## Keywords

Adaptive Procedure Simple Randomization Stratify Randomization Equal Allocation Adaptive Randomization## References

- 1.Armitage P. The role of randomization in clinical trials.
*Statist Med*1982;1:345–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - 2.Brown BW. Statistical Controversies in the Design of Clinical-Trials—Some Personal Views.
*Control Clin Trials*1980;1:13–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - 3.Byar DP, Simon RM, Friedewald WT, et al. Randomized Clinical Trials.
*N Engl J Med*1976;295:74–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - 4.Hill AB. The Clinical Trial.
*Brit M Bull*1951;7:278–282.Google Scholar - 5.Lachin JM. Statistical properties of randomization in clinical trials.
*Control Clin Trials*1988;9:289–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - 6.Lachin JM, Matts JP, Wei LJ. Randomization in clinical trials: Conclusions and recommendations.
*Control Clin Trials*1988;9:365–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - 7.Peto R. Clinical trial methodology.
*Biomedicine*1978;28:24–36.Google Scholar - 8.Peto R, Pike MC, Armitage P, et al. Design and analysis of randomized clinical trials requiring prolonged observation of each patient. I. Introduction and design.
*British Journal of Cancer*1976;34:585.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - 9.Pocock SJ. Allocation of Patients to Treatment in Clinical Trials.
*Biometrics*1979;35:183–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - 10.Royall RM. Ethics and statistics in randomized clinical trials.
*Statistical Science*1991;6:52–62.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar - 11.Weinstein MC. Allocation of Subjects in Medical Experiments.
*N Engl J Med*1974;291:1278–1285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - 12.Zelen M. The randomization and stratification of patients to clinical trials.
*J Chronic Dis*1974;27:365–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - 13.Bather JA. On the allocation of treatments in sequential medical trials.
*International Statistical Review/Revue Internationale de Statistique*1985;1–13.Google Scholar - 14.Kalish LA, Begg CB. Treatment allocation methods in clinical trials: a review.
*Statist Med*1985;4:129–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - 15.Altman DG, Dore CJ. Randomisation and baseline comparisons in clinical trials.
*Lancet*1990;335:149–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - 16.Stigler SM. The use of random allocation for the control of selection bias.
*Biometrika*1969;56:553–560.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar - 17.Wei LJ. On the Random Allocation Design for the Control of Selection Bias in Sequential Experiments.
*Biometrika*1978;65:79–84.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar - 18.Williams DH, Davis CE. Reporting of assignment methods in clinical trials.
*Control Clin Trials*1994;15:294–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - 19.Moher D, Schulz KF, Altman DG. The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomised trials.
*The Lancet*2001;357:1191–1194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - 20.Mills EJ, Wu P, Gagnier J, Devereaux PJ. The quality of randomized trial reporting in leading medical journals since the revised CONSORT statement.
*Contemp Clin Trials*2005;26:480–487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - 21.Brittain E, Schlesselman JJ. Optimal Allocation for the Comparison of Proportions.
*Biometrics*1982;38:1003–1009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - 22.Kalish LA, Harrington DP. Efficiency of Balanced Treatment Allocation for Survival Analysis.
*Biometrics*1988;44:815–821.CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar - 23.Lachin JM. Properties of simple randomization in clinical trials.
*Control Clin Trials*1988;9:312-326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - 24.Louis TA. Optimal allocation in sequential tests comparing the means of two Gaussian populations.
*Biometrika*1975;62:359–369.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar - 25.Louis TA. Sequential Allocation in Clinical Trials Comparing Two Exponential Survival Curves.
*Biometrics*1977;33:627–634.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 26.Matts JP, Lachin JM. Properties of permuted-block randomization in clinical trials.
*Control Clin Trials*1988;9:327–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - 27.Schulz KF, Grimes DA. Allocation concealment in randomised trials: defending against deciphering.
*The Lancet*2002;359:614–618.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - 28.Kalish LA, Begg CB. The impact of treatment allocation procedures on nominal significance levels and bias.
*Control Clin Trials*1987;8:121–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - 29.Matts JP, McHugh RB. Analysis of accrual randomized clinical trials with balanced groups in strata.
*J Chronic Dis*1978;31:725–740.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - 30.Smythe RT, Wei LJ. Significance tests with Restricted Randomization Design.
*Biometrika*1983;70:496-500.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar - 31.Ducimetiere P. Stratification; in Boissel JP, Klimt CR (eds): Multi-Center Controlled Trials, Principles and Problems. Paris, Institut National de la Sante et de la Recherche Medicale, 1979.Google Scholar
- 32.Feinstein AR, Landis JR. The role of prognostic stratification in preventing the bias permitted by random allocation of treatment.
*J Chronic Dis*1976;29:277–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - 33.Fleiss JL. Multicentre clinical trials: Bradford Hill’s contributions and some subsequent developments.
*Statist Med*1982;1:353–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - 34.Green SB, Byar DP. The effect of stratified randomization on size and power of statistical tests in clinical trials.
*J Chronic Dis*1978;31:445–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - 35.Grizzle JE. A note on stratifying versus complete random assignment in clinical trials.
*Control Clin Trials*1982;3:365–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - 36.Mantel N, McHugh R, Matts J. Pre-Stratification or Post-Stratification.
*Biometrics*1984;40:256–258.Google Scholar - 37.McHugh R, Matts J. Post-Stratification in the Randomized Clinical Trial.
*Biometrics*1983;39:217–225.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar - 38.Meier P. Stratification in the design of a clinical trial.
*Control Clin Trials*1981;1:355–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - 39.Palta M, Amini SB. Consideration of covariates and stratification in sample size determination for survival time studies.
*J Chronic Dis*1985;38:801–809.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - 40.Palta M, Amini SB. Magnitude and likelihood of loss resulting from non-stratified randomization.
*Statist Med*1982;1:267–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - 41.Pocock SJ, Simon R. Sequential Treatment Assignment with Balancing for Prognostic Factors in the Controlled Clinical Trial.
*Biometrics*1975;31:103–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - 42.Simon R. Restricted Randomization Designs in Clinical Trials.
*Biometrics*1979;35:503–512.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 43.The Coronary Drug Project Research Group: Factors influencing long-term prognosis after recovery from myocardial infarctionΓÇöThree-year findings of the Coronary Drug Project.
*J Chronic Dis*1974;27:267–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - 44.Zelen M. Aspects of the planning and analysis of clinical trials in cancer. A Survey of Statistical Design and Linear Models Amsterdam: North-Holland 1975.Google Scholar
- 45.Aspirin Myocardial Infarction Study Research Group: A randomized, controlled trial of aspirin in persons recovered from myocardial infarction.
*JAMA*1980;243:661–669.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - 46.Efron B. Forcing a Sequential Experiment to be Balanced.
*Biometrika*1971;58:403–417.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar - 47.Atkinson AC. Optimum biased coin designs for sequential clinical trials with prognostic factors.
*Biometrika*1982;69:61–67.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar - 48.Begg CB, Iglewicz B. A Treatment Allocation Procedure for Sequential Clinical Trials.
*Biometrics*1980;36:81–90.CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar - 49.Begg CB. On Inferences from Wei’s Biased Coin Design for Clinical Trials.
*Biometrika*1990;77:467–478.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar - 50.Efron B. Randomizing and balancing a complicated sequential experiment. Biostatistics Casebook 1980;19–30.Google Scholar
- 51.Forsythe AB, Stitt FW. Randomization or minimization in the treatment assignment of patient trials: validity and power of tests. Health Sciences Computing Facility, University of California, 1977.Google Scholar
- 52.Freedman LS, White SJ. On the Use of Pocock and Simon’s Method for Balancing Treatment Numbers over Prognostic Factors in the Controlled Clinical Trial.
*Biometrics*1976;32:691–694.CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar - 53.Halpern J, Brown BW. Sequential treatment allocation procedures in clinical trials-with particular attention to the analysis of results for the biased coin design.
*Statist Med*1986;5:211–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - 54.Hannigan JF, Brown BW. Adaptive Randomization Biased Coin-Design: Experience in a Cooperative Group Clinical Trial. 74. 1982. Department of Statistics, Stanford University.Google Scholar
- 55.Klotz JH. Maximum Entropy Constrained Balance Randomization for Clinical Trials.
*Biometrics*1978;34:283–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - 56.Raghavarao D. Use of distance function in sequential treatment assignment for prognostic factors in the controlled clinical trial.
*Calcutta Statist Assoc Bull*1980;29:99–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - 57.Smith RL. Sequential Treatment Allocation Using Biased Coin Designs.
*J R Stat Soc Series B Stat Methodol*1984;46:519–543.MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar - 58.Soares JF, Jeff Wu CF. Some restricted randomization rules in sequential designs.
*Commun StatTheory Methods*1983;12:2017–2034.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar - 59.Taves DR. Minimization: a new method of assigning patients to treatment and control groups.
*Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics*1974;15:443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - 60.Wei LJ. A class of treatment assignment rules for sequential experiments.
*Commun Stat Theory Methods*1978;7:285–295.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar - 61.Wei LJ. The Adaptive Biased Coin Design for Sequential Experiments.
*Ann Stat*978;6:92–100.Google Scholar - 62.Wei LJ. A class of designs for sequential clinical trials.
*J Am Stat Assoc*1977;72:382–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - 63.White SJ, Freedman LS. Allocation of patients to treatment groups in a controlled clinical study. Br J Cancer 1978;37:849.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 64.Wei LJ. An application of an urn model to the design of sequential controlled clinical trials.
*J Am Stat Assoc*1978;73:559–563.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar - 65.Wei LJ, Smythe RT, Smith RL. K-treatment comparisons with restricted randomization rules in clinical trials.
*Ann Stat*1986;265–274.Google Scholar - 66.Wei LJ, Lachin JM. Properties of the urn randomization in clinical trials.
*Control Clin Trials*1988;9:345–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - 67.Wei LJ, Smythe RT, Lin DY, Park TS. Statistical inference with data-dependent treatment allocation rules.
*J Am Stat Assoc*1990;85:156–162.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 68.Birkett NJ. Adaptive allocation in randomized controlled trials.
*Control Clin Trials*1985;6:146–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - 69.Russell M, Fleg JL, Galloway W, et al. Examination of lower targets for low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and blood pressure in diabetes—the Stop Atherosclerosis in Native Diabetics Study (SANDS).
*American Heart Journal*2006;152:867–875.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - 70.Proschan MA, Brittain E, Kammerman L. Minimize the Use of Minimization with Unequal Allocation.
*Biometrics*2011;67:1135–1141.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar - 71.Mehta CR, Patel NR, Wei LJ. Constructing Exact Significance Tests with Restricted Randomization Rules.
*Biometrika*1988;75:295–302.CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar - 72.The DCCT Research Group: The Diabetes Control and Complications Trial (DCCT): Design and Methodologic Considerations for the Feasibility Phase.
*Diabetes*1986;35:530–545.Google Scholar - 73.The DCCT Research Group: Diabetes Control and Complications Trial (DCCT): Results of Feasibility Study. The DCCT Research Group.
*Diabetes Care*1987;10:1–19.Google Scholar - 74.Reboussin BA, Preisser JS, Song EY, Wolfson M. Sample size estimation for alternating logistic regressions analysis of multilevel randomized community trials of under-age drinking.
*R Stat Soc Ser A Stat Soc*2012;175:691–712.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 75.Murray DM. Design and Analysis of Group-randomized Trials. Oxford University Press, 1998.Google Scholar
- 76.Gail MH, Wieand S, Piantadosi S. Biased Estimates of Treatment Effect in Randomized Experiments with Nonlinear Regressions and Omitted Covariates.
*Biometrika*1984;71:431–444.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar - 77.Begg CB, Kalish LA. Treatment Allocation for Nonlinear Models in Clinical Trials: The Logistic Model.
*Biometrics*1984;40:409–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - 78.Aickin M. A Simulation Study of the Validity and Efficiency of Design-Adaptive Allocation to Two Groups in the Regression Situation.
*Int J Biostat*2009;5:Article 19.Google Scholar - 79.Kahan BC, Morris TP. Improper analysis of trials randomised using stratified blocks or minimisation.
*Statist Med*2012;31:328–340.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 80.Committee for Proprietary Medicinal Products (CPMP: Committee for Proprietary Medicinal Products (CPMP): points to consider on adjustment for baseline covariates.
*Statist Med*2004;23:701.Google Scholar - 81.FDA: International Conference on Harmonization—Efficacy: Statistical principles for clinical trials. U S Food and Drug Administration.Google Scholar
- 82.Food and Drug Administration: Guidance for industry: Adaptive design clinical trials for drugs and biologics. Washington DC, USA: Food and Drug Administration 2010.Google Scholar
- 83.Green H, McEntegart DJ, Byrom B, et al. Minimization in crossover trials with non-prognostic strata: theory and practical application.
*J Clin Pharm Ther*2001;26:121–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - 84.Zelen M. Play the Winner Rule and the Controlled Clinical Trial.
*J Am Stat Assoc*1969;64:131–146.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 85.Robbins H. Some aspects of the sequential design of experiments.
*Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society*1952;58:527–535.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar - 86.Bailar JC. Patient assignment algorithms: an overview; in Proceedings of the 9th International Biometric Conference, Boston, August 22-27, 1976: Invited Papers: Biometric Society, 1976, pp 189–206.Google Scholar
- 87.Simon R. Adaptive Treatment Assignment Methods and Clinical Trials.
*Biometrics*1977;33:743–749.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - 88.Armitage P. The search for optimality in clinical trials.
*International Statistical Review/Revue Internationale de Statistique*1985;15–24.Google Scholar - 89.Bather JA. Randomized Allocation of Treatments in Sequential Experiments.
*J R Stat Soc Series B Stat Methodol*1981;43:265–292.MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar - 90.Berry DA. Modified Two-Armed Bandit Strategies for Certain Clinical Trials.
*J Am Stat Assoc*1978;73:339–345.CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar - 91.Nordbrock E. An Improved Play-the-Winner Sampling Procedure for Selecting the Better of Two Binomial Populations.
*J Am Stat Assoc*1976;71:137–139.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar - 92.Simon R, Weiss GH, Hoel DG. Sequential Analysis of Binomial Clinical Trials.
*Biometrika*1975;62:195–200.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar - 93.Simon R, Hoel DG, Weiss GH. The use of covariate information in the sequential analysis of dichotomous response experiments.
*Commun Stat Theory Methods*1977;6:777–788.CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar - 94.Wei LJ. Exact two-sample permutation tests based on the randomized play-the-winner rule.
*Biometrika*1988;75:603–606.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar - 95.Bartlett RH, Roloff DW, Cornell RG, et al. Extracorporeal Circulation in Neonatal Respiratory Failure: A Prospective Randomized Study.
*Pediatrics*1985;76:479–487.Google Scholar - 96.O’Rourke PP, Crone RK, Vacanti JP, et al. Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation and Conventional Medical Therapy in Neonates With Persistent Pulmonary Hypertension of the Newborn: A Prospective Randomized Study.
*Pediatrics*1989;84:957–963.Google Scholar - 97.Paneth N, Wallenstein S. Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation and the Play the Winner Rule.
*Pediatrics*1985;76:622–623.Google Scholar - 98.Ware JH, Epstein MF. Extracorporeal Circulation in Neonatal Respiratory Failure: A Prospective Randomized Study.
*Pediatrics*1985;76:849–851.Google Scholar - 99.Ware JH. Investigating Therapies of Potentially Great Benefit: ECMO.
*Stat Sci*1989;4:298–306.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar - 100.Pocock SJ, Lagakos SW. Practical experience of randomization in cancer trials: an international survey.
*Br J Cancer*1982;46:368–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - 101.Downs M, Tucker K, Christ-Schmidt H, Wittes J. Some practical problems in implementing randomization.
*Clin Trials*2010;7:235–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - 102.Chalmers TC, Celano P, Sacks HS, Smith H. Bias in Treatment Assignment in Controlled Clinical Trials.
*N Engl J Med*1983;309:1358–1361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - 103.Beta-Blocker Heart Attack Trial Research Group. A randomized trial of propranolol in patients with acute myocardial infarction: I. mortality results.
*JAMA*1982;247:1707–1714.Google Scholar - 104.CASS Principle Investigators and Their Associates. Coronary artery surgery study (CASS): a randomized trial of coronary artery bypass surgery. Survival data.
*Circulation*1983;68:939–950.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - 105.Collaborative Group on Antenatal Steroid Therapy. Effect of antenatal dexamethasone administration on the prevention of respiratory distress syndrome.
*Am J Obstet Gynecol*1981;141:276–287.Google Scholar - 106.Hypertension Detection and Follow-up Program Cooperative Group: Five-year findings of the hypertension detection and follow-up program: I. reduction in mortality of persons with high blood pressure, including mild hypertension.
*JAMA*1979;242:2562–2571.Google Scholar - 107.Multiple Risk Factor Intervention Trial Research Group. Multiple risk factor intervention trial: Risk factor changes and mortality results.
*JAMA*1982;248:1465–1477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - 108.Reboussin D, Espeland MA. The science of web-based clinical trial management.
*Clin Trials*2005;2:1–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - 109.Krischer JP, Hurley C, Pillalamarri M, et al. An automated patient registration and treatment randomization system for multicenter clinical trials.
*Control Clin Trials*1991;12:367–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - 110.Kjekshus J, Apetrei E, Barrios V, et al. Rosuvastatin in Older Patients with Systolic Heart Failure.
*N Engl J Med*2007;357:2248–2261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - 111.SPORTIF Executive Steering Committee for the SPORTIF: Ximelagatran vs warfarin for stroke prevention in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation: A randomized trial.
*JAMA*2005;293:690–698.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - 112.Ahlmark G, Saetre H. Long-term treatment with ß-blockers after myocardial infarction.
*Eur J Clin Pharmacol*1976;10:77–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar