Sample size calculations for randomized controlled trials and for prediction models

Two study protocols are published in this issue of Colorectal Disease: FALCON, a multicentre randomised controlled trial of strategies to reduce surgical site infection, and AFAR, a predictive model of atrial fibrillation after colonic resection. Both are exemplars of excellent research design that surgeon researchers should seek to emulate. Trial statisticians were involved at an early stage and the protocols have been through several rounds of peer review by trial methodologists, prior to being funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR). In this article we address the important question of sample size calculations and how they should be approached for these very different forms of study.

[1]  T. Treasure,et al.  National variation in pulmonary metastasectomy for colorectal cancer , 2020, Colorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland.

[2]  Hiromasa Yamamoto,et al.  A Simple Prognostic Benefit Scoring System for Sarcoma Patients with Pulmonary Metastases: Sarcoma Lung Metastasis Score , 2020, Annals of Surgical Oncology.

[3]  A. Bhangu,et al.  Pragmatic multicentre factorial randomized controlled trial testing measures to reduce surgical site infection in low‐ and middle‐income countries: study protocol of the FALCON trial , 2020, Colorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland.

[4]  L. Fallowfield,et al.  The myth of pulmonary metastasectomy , 2020, British Journal of Cancer.

[5]  J. Dunning,et al.  Pulmonary Metastasectomy in Colorectal Cancer: updated analysis of 93 randomized patients – control survival is much better than previously assumed , 2020, Colorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland.

[6]  J. Dunning,et al.  Pulmonary Metastasectomy versus Continued Active Monitoring in Colorectal Cancer (PulMiCC): a multicentre randomised clinical trial , 2019, Trials.

[7]  H. Pass,et al.  Expert Consensus Document on Pulmonary Metastasectomy. , 2019, Annals of Thoracic Surgery.

[8]  Paul Glasziou,et al.  Research waste is still a scandal—an essay by Paul Glasziou and Iain Chalmers , 2018, British Medical Journal.

[9]  J. H. van der Meulen,et al.  Socioeconomic differences in selection for liver resection in metastatic colorectal cancer and the impact on survival. , 2018, European journal of surgical oncology : the journal of the European Society of Surgical Oncology and the British Association of Surgical Oncology.

[10]  J. H. van der Meulen,et al.  Model for risk adjustment of postoperative mortality in patients with colorectal cancer , 2015, The British journal of surgery.

[11]  C. Combescure,et al.  Risk Factors for Survival after Lung Metastasectomy in Colorectal Cancer Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis , 2013, Annals of Surgical Oncology.

[12]  T. Treasure,et al.  Pulmonary metastasectomy in colorectal cancer: a systematic review and quantitative synthesis , 2010, Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine.

[13]  T. Treasure,et al.  Better out than in? The resection of pulmonary metastases from colorectal tumours , 2008 .

[14]  Paul Glasziou,et al.  When are randomised trials unnecessary? Picking signal from noise , 2007, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[15]  Douglas G Altman,et al.  Treatment allocation by minimisation , 2005, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[16]  T. Treasure,et al.  Minimisation: the platinum standard for trials? , 1998, BMJ.

[17]  T. Treasure,et al.  Factors predisposing to wound infection in cardiac surgery. A prospective study of 517 patients. , 1987, European journal of cardio-thoracic surgery : official journal of the European Association for Cardio-thoracic Surgery.

[18]  B. Nilsson,et al.  The effect of metastasectomy: fact or fiction? , 1980, The Annals of thoracic surgery.

[19]  I NICOLETTI,et al.  The Planning of Experiments , 1936, Rivista di clinica pediatrica.