Why are only randomized designs considered when balanced designs can maximize information when you have small samples – which is entire rationale for these RNCT’s to begin with? Without getting into a deep methodological discussion, why aren’t more researchers aware of how to maximize information from small samples via procedures like minimization?
I posted a few references in this thread:
A good place to start would be this Douglas Altman article:
The CONSORT statement from 2010 (when Douglas Altman was one of the authors) explicitly mentions minimization in a number of places, where it is considered “equivalent” to an RCT.
Moher D, Hopewell S, Schulz KF, Montori V, Gøtzsche PC, Devereaux PJ, Elbourne D, Egger M, Altman DG, for the CONSORT Group. CONSORT 2010 Explanation and Elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trial. BMJ. 2010;340:c869. PMID: 20332511 (PDF)
In Box 2, page 9 of the 2010 CONSORT Explanation and Elaboration Statement, the following is mentioned:
Nevertheless, in general, trials that use minimisation are considered methodologically equivalent to randomised trials, even when a random element is not incorporated.
A quick glance at the 2025 statement seems to indicate this advice has been removed for some inexplicable reason. There is also a discussion of the role of randomization that should have made these designs impossible to publish in any scientific journal..