Comment: Is Response-Adaptive Randomization a Good Thing or Not in Clinical Trials? Why We Cannot Take Sides
Abstract
The paper by Robertson et al. intends to provide a unified, broad and fresh review of methodological and practical issues to consider as a contribution to the ongoing debate concerning RAR in clinical trials. Simulations carried out by different authors seem to disprove its usefulness both for statistical inference and as a safeguard for the care of patients in the trial. I argue that the arguments brought forward so far are inconclusive, since the inferential considerations are sometimes incomplete or incorrect, and some simulation studies unconvincing. A Bayesian stand is very common, but often not fully understood.