A note on stratification errors in the analysis of clinical trials

Abstract

Stratification in both the design and analysis of randomized clinical trials is common. Despite features in automated randomization systems to re-confirm the stratifying variables, incorrect values of these variables may be entered. These errors are often detected during subsequent data collection and verification. Questions remain about whether to use the mis-reported initial stratification or the corrected values in subsequent analyses. It is shown that the likelihood function resulting from the design of randomized clinical trials supports the use of the corrected values. New definitions are proposed that characterize misclassification errors as `ignorable' and `non-ignorable'. Ignorable errors may depend on the correct strata and any other modeled baseline covariates, but they are otherwise unrelated to potential treatment outcomes. Data management review suggests most misclassification errors are arbitrarily produced by distracted investigators, so they are ignorable or at most weakly dependent on measured and unmeasured baseline covariates. Ignorable misclassification errors may produce a small increase in standard errors, but other properties of the planned analyses are unchanged (e.g., unbiasedness, confidence interval coverage). It is shown that unbiased linear estimation in the absence of misclassification errors remains unbiased when there are non-ignorable misclassification errors, and the corresponding confidence intervals based on the corrected strata values are conservative.