ArticleContemporary clinical trials communications2025
An application of minimization for ensuring balanced study arms in a group-randomized COVID-19 educational intervention trial.
Article in Contemporary clinical trials communications, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Our institution carried out a multi-center, group-randomized controlled trial to evaluate the effectiveness of two community-based interventions on promoting the uptake of COVID-19 testing and vaccination in three regions with high levels of health disparities in Texas. We selected Census Block Groups (CBGs) with high disparity for randomization. In each study region, selected CBGs were randomized into two intervention groups and one control group. An important goal was to ensure balanced distributions of two continuous covariates, the disparity index and population size, across study arms. In this paper, we describe a novel minimization method used to ensure balanced study arms. Methods: We employed a minimization method to balance distributions of disparity index and population size among the selected CBGs across three study groups. First, we used the means and standard deviations at the baseline to standardize covariates. Second, we used the maximum of pairwise Manhattan distances as the imbalance score. When randomizing a set of CBGs, we computed the imbalance scores for all possible assignments and used unequal allocation probabilities to implement randomization. We conducted a simulation study to evaluate the performance of the imbalance score. Results: In both the simulation study and the actual randomization results of the trial, minimization yielded balanced groups on the marginal distributions of the disparity index and population size. In the trial, the study groups were highly homogenous regarding the joint distribution of disparity index and population size (p = 0.91). Conclusion: The results indicate that the maximum of pairwise Manhattan distances is a practically useful imbalance score. Using this imbalance score, the minimization procedure satisfactorily balances the distribution of continuous covariates among three study groups.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.