DELTA2 guidance on choosing the target difference and undertaking and reporting the sample size calculation for a randomised controlled trial

Background: A key step in the design of a RCT is the estimation of the number of participants needed in the study. The most common approach is to specify a target difference between the treatments for the primary outcome and then calculate the required sample size. The sample size is chosen to ensure that the trial will have a high probability (adequate statistical power) of detecting a target difference between the treatments should one exist. The sample size has many implications for the conduct and interpretation of the study. Despite the critical role that the target difference has in the design of a RCT, the way in which it is determined has received little attention. In this article, we summarise the key considerations and messages from new guidance for researchers and funders on specifying the target difference, and undertaking and reporting a RCT sample size calculation. This article on choosing the target difference for a randomised controlled trial (RCT) and undertaking and reporting the sample size calculation has been dual published in the BMJ and BMC Trials journals Methods: The DELTA (Difference ELicitation in TriAls) project comprised five major components: systematic literature reviews of recent methodological developments (stage 1) and existing funder guidance (stage 2); a Delphi study (stage 3); a two-day consensus meeting bringing together researchers, funders and patient representatives (stage 4); and the preparation and dissemination of a guidance document (stage 5). Results and Discussion: The key messages from the DELTA guidance on determining the target difference and sample size calculation for a randomised caontrolled 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]  Steven A. Julious,et al.  Sample Sizes for Clinical Trials , 2009 .

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

[14]  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.

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

[16]  M. A. Best Bayesian Approaches to Clinical Trials and Health‐Care Evaluation , 2005 .

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

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

[19]  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.

[20]  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.

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

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

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

[24]  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.

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

[26]  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.