DELTA 2 guidance on choosing the target difference and undertaking and reporting the sample size calculation for a randomised controlled trial

Randomised controlled trials are considered to be the best method to assess comparative clinical efficacy and effectiveness, and can be a key source of data for estimating cost effectiveness. Central to the design of a randomised controlled trial is an a priori sample size calculation, which ensures that the study has a high probability of achieving its prespecified main objective. Beyond pure statistical or scientific concerns, it is ethically imperative that an appropriate number of study participants be recruited, to avoid imposing the burdens of a clinical trial on more patients than necessary. The scientific concern is satisfied and the ethical imperative is further addressed by the specification of a target difference between treatments that is considered realistic or important by one or more key stakeholder groups. The sample size calculation ensures that the trial will have the required statistical power to identify whether a difference of a particular magnitude exists. In this article, the key messages from the DELTA guidance on determining the target difference and sample size calculation for a randomised controlled trial are presented. Recommendations for the subsequent reporting of the sample size calculation are also provided.

[1]  S. Ruberg,et al.  Estimands in clinical trials – broadening the perspective , 2017, Statistics in medicine.

[2]  Martin Posch,et al.  Determination of the optimal sample size for a clinical trial accounting for the population size , 2016, Biometrical journal. Biometrische Zeitschrift.

[3]  Frank Bretz,et al.  Estimands: discussion points from the PSI estimands and sensitivity expert group , 2017, Pharmaceutical statistics.

[4]  G. Rosenkranz,et al.  Estimands—new statistical principle or the emperor's new clothes? , 2017, Pharmaceutical statistics.

[5]  Douglas G Altman,et al.  Specifying the target difference in the primary outcome for a randomised controlled trial: guidance for researchers , 2015, Trials.

[6]  P. Fayers,et al.  Assessing methods to specify the target difference for a randomised controlled trial: DELTA (Difference ELicitation in TriAls) review. , 2014, Health technology assessment.

[7]  Douglas G. Altman,et al.  Methods for Specifying the Target Difference in a Randomised Controlled Trial: The Difference ELicitation in TriAls (DELTA) Systematic Review , 2014, PLoS medicine.

[8]  Andrew H Briggs,et al.  Use of methods for specifying the target difference in randomised controlled trial sample size calculations: Two surveys of trialists’ practice , 2014, Clinical trials.

[9]  R. J. Shephard,et al.  Comparison of adaptive pacing therapy, cognitive behaviour therapy, graded exercise therapy, and specialist medical care for chronic fatigue syndrome (PACE): a randomised trial , 2012 .

[10]  Leiv Sandvik,et al.  Surgery with disc prosthesis versus rehabilitation in patients with low back pain and degenerative disc: two year follow-up of randomised study , 2011, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[11]  J. Bland,et al.  The tyranny of power: is there a better way to calculate sample size? , 2009, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[12]  Philippe Ravaud,et al.  Reporting of sample size calculation in randomised controlled trials: review , 2009, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[13]  A. Copay,et al.  Understanding the minimum clinically important difference: a review of concepts and methods. , 2007, The spine journal : official journal of the North American Spine Society.

[14]  K. Schulz,et al.  Sample size calculations in randomised trials: mandatory and mystical , 2005, The Lancet.

[15]  Stephen Senn,et al.  Controversies concerning randomization and additivity in clinical trials , 2004, Statistics in medicine.

[16]  Hamid Pezeshk,et al.  Bayesian techniques for sample size determination in clinical trials: a short review , 2003, Statistical methods in medical research.

[17]  D. Beaton,et al.  Many faces of the minimal clinically important difference (MCID): a literature review and directions for future research. , 2002, Current opinion in rheumatology.

[18]  A Laupacis,et al.  How well is the clinical importance of study results reported? An assessment of randomized controlled trials. , 2001, CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne.

[19]  D. Moher,et al.  The Revised CONSORT Statement for Reporting Randomized Trials: Explanation and Elaboration , 2001, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[20]  B Shea,et al.  Minimal clinically important differences: review of methods. , 2001, The Journal of rheumatology.

[21]  S. Chinn.  A simple method for converting an odds ratio to effect size for use in meta-analysis. , 2000, Statistics in medicine.

[22]  A Cuschieri,et al.  Sample size calculation for clinical trials: the impact of clinician beliefs , 1999, British Journal of Cancer.

[23]  K Claxton,et al.  The irrelevance of inference: a decision-making approach to the stochastic evaluation of health care technologies. , 1999, Journal of health economics.

[24]  S. Casswell,et al.  What is meant by intention to treat analysis? Survey of published randomised controlled trials , 1999 .

[25]  S. Goodman,et al.  The Use of Predicted Confidence Intervals When Planning Experiments and the Misuse of Power When Interpreting Results , 1994, Annals of Internal Medicine.