Assessing bias of multicenter trials with incomplete treatment allocation

Some multicenter randomized controlled trials (e.g. for rare diseases or with slow recruitment) involve many centers with few patients in each. Under within-center randomization, some centers might not assign each treatment to at least one patient; hence, such centers have no within-center treatment effect estimates and the center-stratified treatment effect estimate can be inefficient, perhaps to an extent with statistical and ethical implications. Recently, combining complete and incomplete centers with a priori weights has been suggested. However, a concern is whether using the incomplete centers increases bias. To study this concern, an approach with randomization models for a finite population was used to evaluate bias of the usual complete center estimator, the simple center-ignoring estimator, and the weighted estimator combining complete and incomplete centers. The situation with two treatments and many centers, each with either one or two patients, was evaluated. Various patient accrual mechanisms were considered, including one involving selection bias. The usual complete center estimator and the weighted estimator were unbiased under the overall null hypothesis, even with selection bias. An actual dermatology clinical trial motivates and illustrates these methods.