We will use a blocked randomization scheme with variable block sizes to ensure that the number of subjects in each treatment group (percutaneous vertebroplasty vs. control intervention) balances over time.
Eligible subjects were randomized using a block randomization scheme to receive one of the four treatments: 4.5 g/day of CG (n=34), 1.5 g/day of CG (n=33), 1.5 g/day of CG plus 135 mg/day olive extract (n=33) or matching placebo capsules (n=35).
After assignment to Group 1 and Group 2, patients were randomized by computer using a block randomization (six patients per block) to RUL 5, RUL 2.5, and bifrontal (BF) ECT in Group 1, and to RUL 5, and RUL 2.5 in Group 2. Assignment was concealed until administration of the first ECT treatment.
Study subjects were randomized to drug regimen groups using a block randomization design.
A total of 41 patients were randomized to receive the study treatment using a block randomization technique.
Patients were randomized within 60 days of screening using a block randomization scheme of 2 2 1 of 8 mg VM202 per leg (16 mg total dose; hereafter low dose [LD] group), 16 mg VM202 per leg (32 mg total dose; hereafter high dose [HD] group), and placebo (P) (saline injection).
Research staff then administers the baseline assessment battery and randomize the dyads into one of the three treatment conditions using a block randomization process.
Study animals (20 males and 12 females 5 20 months old) were assigned to vaccination or control groups, using a block randomization design ensuring equal sex distributions between groups.
Perhaps we should have used a block randomization scheme.
