Does randomization matter in rare disease clinical trials
- 1Institute of Medical Statistics, RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany
- 2Medical Faculty, Sigmund Freud Private University, Vienna, Austria
Abstract
Background: Conducting Rare Disease Clinical Trials poses a wide variety of research challenges. Many techniques that are usually considered the best standard for evaluating new therapies are more difficult to implement here. This also holds in terms of randomization in clinical trials. The question arises how to randomize and, especially, which randomization procedure (RP) should be used to prevent the influence of bias focussing on allocation bias as efficiently as possible. Methods: We present guidance that supports users in the selection and implementation of an RP based on the ERDO framework, which is a template for the evaluation of RPs for design optimization. For this purpose, we use the freely available R-package randomizeR, which is an easy-to-use tool to evaluate different RPs for various study designs while quantifying different types of bias. The evaluation is based on different metrics, such as the mean type-1 error probability or the go-no-go criterion, and brings these together with indirect evaluation criteria such as predictability and the number of correct guesses. Results: For the evaluation of RPs and the comparison of RPs with each other, both the presented indirect and direct criteria should be considered together. Examining the criteria individually might be misleading and may lead to different decisions regarding the RP. Different study designs may result in different assessments, so there is no universal solution or choice for RPs. Conclusion: Randomization is and will continue to be a key methodology for rare disease clinical trials. Quantification of bias in particular with respect to the test decision is an essential issue, and the use of the ERDO framework should be a routine practice in the design of a trial.
Related
- Does the Disease-free Survival Benefit of Adding Belzutifan to Adjuvant Pembrolizumab Persist Beyond the Planned Treatment Period? A Reconstructed Individual Patient Data Analysis of Phase 3 Renal Cell Carcinoma Trials
- Platelets in sickle cell disease: biomarkers, mediators, and lessons from clinical trials
- Does weather matter? Exploring associations between season and meteorological factors and psoriatic arthritis disease activity
- Pharmacological strategies to manage oxidative stress in Huntington’s disease: from preclinical models to clinical trials
- Expert perspectives on the design and communication of endpoints in Alzheimer's disease clinical trials.
BibTeX
@article{wied2026does,
title = {{Does randomization matter in rare disease clinical trials}},
author = {Stephanie Wied and Denis Kirilov Razsolkov and Nicole Heussen and Ralf-Dieter Hilgers},
journal = {PLOS One},
year = {2026},
month = sep,
doi = {10.1371/journal.pone.0339427},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0339427},
note = {CC BY 4.0},
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
TI - Does randomization matter in rare disease clinical trials
AU - Stephanie Wied
AU - Denis Kirilov Razsolkov
AU - Nicole Heussen
AU - Ralf-Dieter Hilgers
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/09/02
JO - PLOS One
DO - 10.1371/journal.pone.0339427
UR - https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0339427
AB - Background: Conducting Rare Disease Clinical Trials poses a wide variety of research challenges. Many techniques that are usually considered the best standard for evaluating new therapies are more difficult to implement here. This also holds in terms of randomization in clinical trials. The question arises how to randomize and, especially, which randomization procedure (RP) should be used to prevent the influence of bias focussing on allocation bias as efficiently as possible. Methods: We present guidance that supports users in the selection and implementation of an RP based on the ERDO framework, which is a template for the evaluation of RPs for design optimization. For this purpose, we use the freely available R-package randomizeR, which is an easy-to-use tool to evaluate different RPs for various study designs while quantifying different types of bias. The evaluation is based on different metrics, such as the mean type-1 error probability or the go-no-go criterion, and brings these together with indirect evaluation criteria such as predictability and the number of correct guesses. Results: For the evaluation of RPs and the comparison of RPs with each other, both the presented indirect and direct criteria should be considered together. Examining the criteria individually might be misleading and may lead to different decisions regarding the RP. Different study designs may result in different assessments, so there is no universal solution or choice for RPs. Conclusion: Randomization is and will continue to be a key methodology for rare disease clinical trials. Quantification of bias in particular with respect to the test decision is an essential issue, and the use of the ERDO framework should be a routine practice in the design of a trial.
SN - 1932-6203
ER -