Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Concept Videos

Randomized Experiments01:13

Randomized Experiments

The randomization process involves assigning study participants randomly to experimental or control groups based on their probability of being equally assigned. Randomization is meant to eliminate selection bias and balance known and unknown confounding factors so that the control group is similar to the treatment group as much as possible. A computer program and a random number generator can be used to assign participants to groups in a way that minimizes bias.
Simple randomization
Simple...
Group Design02:01

Group Design

The most basic experimental design involves two groups: the experimental group and the control group. The two groups are designed to be the same except for one difference— experimental manipulation. The experimental group gets the experimental manipulation—that is, the treatment or variable being tested—and the control group does not. Since experimental manipulation is the only difference between the experimental and control groups, we can be sure that any differences between the two are due to...
Bioequivalence Experimental Study Designs: Completely Randomized and Randomized Block Designs01:20

Bioequivalence Experimental Study Designs: Completely Randomized and Randomized Block Designs

Bioequivalence experimental study designs are crucial methodologies used in evaluating and comparing the bioavailability of different drug products. These designs are categorized into various types: completely randomized, randomized block, repeated measures, cross and carry-over, and Latin square designs.Completely randomized designs involve randomly allocating treatments to all subjects participating in the experiment. This allocation is achieved by assigning unique random numbers to subjects...
Regression Toward the Mean01:52

Regression Toward the Mean

Regression toward the mean (“RTM”) is a phenomenon in which extremely high or low values—for example, and individual’s blood pressure at a particular moment—appear closer to a group’s average upon remeasuring. Although this statistical peculiarity is the result of random error and chance, it has been problematic across various medical, scientific, financial and psychological applications. In particular, RTM, if not taken into account, can interfere when researchers try to extrapolate results...
Bioequivalence Experimental Study Designs: Repeated Measures, Cross-Over, Carry-Over, and Latin Square Designs01:15

Bioequivalence Experimental Study Designs: Repeated Measures, Cross-Over, Carry-Over, and Latin Square Designs

Bioequivalence experimental study designs play a pivotal role in testing the effectiveness of various treatments. Key among these are the repeated measures, cross-over, carry-over, and Latin square designs. In the repeated measures design, each subject receives all treatments, allowing for temporal comparisons. This type of design is useful in reducing variability but requires careful planning to avoid bias.The cross-over design, an economical method, involves sequential administration of...
Blinding01:11

Blinding

Blinding is a commonly used method of not telling participants which treatment a subject is receiving. Blinding is a critical part of a randomized control trial or RCT. It reduces the bias that affects the results. In an RCT, blinding is used in the form of a placebo. A placebo effect occurs when untreated subjects falsely believe they have received the treatment and report improved symptoms. A placebo or a dummy treatment is administered to subjects to negate the bias caused by such an effect.

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Changing standard of care during a randomized trial: examples, considerations and guidelines.

Journal of the National Cancer Institute·2026
Same author

A note on rank-preserving structural failure time models to account for crossover.

Clinical trials (London, England)·2026
Same author

Evaluating the impact of stratification on the power and cross-arm balance of randomized phase 2 clinical trials.

Clinical trials (London, England)·2025
Same author

Accrual Suspensions in Seamless Phase II/III Trials: A Review of NRG Oncology Trials.

JCO oncology advances·2025
Same author

Phase III Evaluation of Treatment Combinations in Three-Arm Trials.

Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology·2024
Same author

Two-to-One Randomization: Rarely Advisable.

JCO oncology practice·2024
Same journal

Therapy for Stage IV Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer With Driver Alterations: ASCO Living Guideline, Version 2026.3.2.

Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology·2026
Same journal

Metabolic Modulation in Cancer Care: The Potential Role of Glucagon-Like Peptide-1 Receptor Agonists.

Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology·2026
Same journal

Long-Term Follow-Up of JCOG1008, a Randomized Phase II/III Trial of Chemoradiotherapy Comparing 3-Weekly Cisplatin With Weekly Cisplatin in Postoperative Head and Neck Cancer.

Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology·2026
Same journal

First-Line Disitamab Vedotin, Tislelizumab, and S-1 in HER2-Overexpressing Advanced Gastric or Gastroesophageal Junction Adenocarcinoma: A Single-Arm, Phase II Trial.

Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology·2026
Same journal

Donor Selection and Human Leukocyte Antigen Loss Leukemia Relapse After Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation.

Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology·2026
Same journal

Small Cemetery Within.

Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology·2026
See all related articles

Related Experiment Video

Updated: Jun 5, 2026

Inverse Probability of Treatment Weighting (Propensity Score) using the Military Health System Data Repository and National Death Index
06:55

Inverse Probability of Treatment Weighting (Propensity Score) using the Military Health System Data Repository and National Death Index

Published on: January 8, 2020

Outcome--adaptive randomization: is it useful?

Edward L Korn1, Boris Freidlin

  • 1Biometric Research Branch, EPN-8129, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD 20892, USA. korne@ctep.nci.nih.gov

Journal of Clinical Oncology : Official Journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology
|December 22, 2010
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Outcome-adaptive randomization in clinical trials offers no advantage over standard 1:1 randomization. Fixed 2:1 randomization is recommended if higher patient accrual is anticipated due to adaptive design benefits.

More Related Videos

Measuring the Subjective Value of Risky and Ambiguous Options using Experimental Economics and Functional MRI Methods
13:04

Measuring the Subjective Value of Risky and Ambiguous Options using Experimental Economics and Functional MRI Methods

Published on: September 19, 2012

Related Experiment Videos

Last Updated: Jun 5, 2026

Inverse Probability of Treatment Weighting (Propensity Score) using the Military Health System Data Repository and National Death Index
06:55

Inverse Probability of Treatment Weighting (Propensity Score) using the Military Health System Data Repository and National Death Index

Published on: January 8, 2020

Measuring the Subjective Value of Risky and Ambiguous Options using Experimental Economics and Functional MRI Methods
13:04

Measuring the Subjective Value of Risky and Ambiguous Options using Experimental Economics and Functional MRI Methods

Published on: September 19, 2012

Area of Science:

  • Clinical Trials Methodology
  • Biostatistics
  • Medical Research Design

Background:

  • Adaptive trial designs allow for modifications during a study.
  • Outcome-adaptive randomization adjusts patient allocation ratios based on interim results.
  • This approach aims to assign more patients to better-performing treatment arms.

Purpose of the Study:

  • Compare outcome-adaptive randomization with fixed 1:1 and 2:1 randomization ratios.
  • Evaluate efficiency in terms of sample size and patient outcomes.
  • Assess suitability for phase II and III clinical trials with binary outcomes.

Main Methods:

  • Simulated comparisons of randomization strategies.
  • Analysis focused on sample size requirements and proportion of patients with inferior outcomes.
  • Consideration of single-control treatment arm scenarios.

Main Results:

  • Outcome-adaptive randomization showed no benefit over 1:1 randomization when accrual rates are not affected.
  • Fixed 1:1 randomization is recommended in the absence of differential accrual.
  • Fixed 2:1 randomization is suggested over adaptive methods if increased accrual is expected.

Conclusions:

  • Standard 1:1 randomization is generally preferred for its simplicity and efficiency.
  • Adaptive randomization does not inherently improve trial outcomes without influencing patient recruitment.
  • Fixed ratio designs, particularly 2:1, may be more advantageous if adaptive designs boost patient enrollment.