Evidence‐based sample size calculations based upon updated meta‐analysis

Meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) provide the highest level of evidence regarding the effectiveness of interventions and as such underpin much of evidence-based medicine. Despite this, meta-analyses are usually produced as observational by-products of the existing literature, with no formal consideration of future meta-analyses when individual trials are being designed. Basing the sample size of a new trial on the results of an updated meta-analysis which will include it, may sometimes make more sense than powering the trial in isolation. A framework for sample size calculation for a future RCT based on the results of a meta-analysis of the existing evidence is presented. Both fixed and random effect approaches are explored through an example. Bayesian Markov Chain Monte Carlo simulation modelling is used for the random effects model since it has computational advantages over the classical approach. Several criteria on which to base inference and hence power are considered. The prior expectation of the power is averaged over the prior distribution for the unknown true treatment effect. An extension to the framework allowing for consideration of the design for a series of new trials is also presented. Results suggest that power can be highly dependent on the statistical model used to meta-analyse the data and even very large studies may have little impact on a meta-analysis when there is considerable between study heterogeneity. This raises issues regarding the appropriateness of the use of random effect models when designing and drawing inferences across a series of studies.

[1]  O. V. van Schayck,et al.  Control of house dust mite in managing asthma , 1999, BMJ.

[2]  D. Spiegelhalter,et al.  Disease Mapping With WinBUGS and MLwiN, Bayesian Approaches to Clinical Trials and Health Care Evaluation , 2004 .

[3]  Theo Stijnen,et al.  Advanced methods in meta‐analysis: multivariate approach and meta‐regression , 2002, Statistics in medicine.

[4]  David R. Jones,et al.  How vague is vague? A simulation study of the impact of the use of vague prior distributions in MCMC using WinBUGS , 2005, Statistics in medicine.

[5]  Alex J. Sutton,et al.  Methods for Meta-Analysis in Medical Research , 2000 .

[6]  A. H. Feiveson,et al.  Power by Simulation , 2002 .

[7]  S. Thompson,et al.  Detecting and describing heterogeneity in meta-analysis. , 1998, Statistics in medicine.

[8]  H C Van Houwelingen,et al.  A bivariate approach to meta-analysis. , 1993, Statistics in medicine.

[9]  Anne Whitehead Sequential Methods for Meta‐Analysis , 2003 .

[10]  A Fletcher,et al.  Implications for trials in progress of publication of positive results , 1993, The Lancet.

[11]  D. Altman,et al.  Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses , 2003, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[12]  P C Lambert,et al.  A comparison of summary patient-level covariates in meta-regression with individual patient data meta-analysis. , 2002, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[13]  K Claxton,et al.  Bayesian approaches to the value of information: implications for the regulation of new pharmaceuticals. , 1999, Health economics.

[14]  L. Hedges,et al.  The power of statistical tests in meta-analysis. , 2001, Psychological methods.

[15]  S G Thompson,et al.  Systematic Review: Why sources of heterogeneity in meta-analysis should be investigated , 1994, BMJ.

[16]  D. Spiegelhalter,et al.  Bayesian Approaches to Clinical Trials and Health-Care Evaluation: Spiegelhalter/Clinical Trials and Health-Care Evaluation , 2004 .

[17]  N. Laird,et al.  Meta-analysis in clinical trials. , 1986, Controlled clinical trials.

[18]  S. Yusuf,et al.  Cumulating evidence from randomized trials: utilizing sequential monitoring boundaries for cumulative meta-analysis. , 1997, Controlled clinical trials.

[19]  Anthony O'Hagan,et al.  Assurance in clinical trial design , 2005 .

[20]  Nicola J Cooper,et al.  The use of systematic reviews when designing studies , 2005, Clinical trials.

[21]  B J Biggerstaff,et al.  Incorporating variability in estimates of heterogeneity in the random effects model in meta-analysis. , 1997, Statistics in medicine.

[22]  L. M. Carpenter Is the study worth doing? , 1993, The Lancet.

[23]  S. Thompson,et al.  Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta‐analysis , 2002, Statistics in medicine.

[24]  T M Morgan,et al.  Lessons Learned from a Prospective Meta‐analysis , 1995, Journal of the American Geriatrics Society.

[25]  D. Lindley The choice of sample size , 1997 .

[26]  A E Ades,et al.  The Interpretation of Random-Effects Meta-Analysis in Decision Models , 2005, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[27]  Anne Whitehead,et al.  Meta-Analysis of Controlled Clinical Trials , 2002 .

[28]  A O'Hagan,et al.  Bayesian Assessment of Sample Size for Clinical Trials of Cost-Effectiveness , 2001, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[29]  R Simon,et al.  Assessing whether to perform a confirmatory randomized clinical trial. , 1996, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[30]  Stephen Senn,et al.  The Many Modes of Meta , 2000 .

[31]  Shirley Taylor,et al.  Power dressing and meta-analysis: incorporating power analysis into meta-analysis. , 2002, Journal of advanced nursing.

[32]  S G Thompson,et al.  A likelihood approach to meta-analysis with random effects. , 1996, Statistics in medicine.

[33]  D J Spiegelhalter,et al.  Bayesian approaches to random-effects meta-analysis: a comparative study. , 1995, Statistics in medicine.