Practical help for specifying the target difference in sample size calculations for RCTs: the DELTA2 five-stage study, including a workshop.

BACKGROUND The randomised controlled trial is widely considered to be the gold standard study for comparing the effectiveness of health interventions. Central to its design is a calculation of the number of participants needed (the sample size) for the trial. The sample size is typically calculated by specifying the magnitude of the difference in the primary outcome between the intervention effects for the population of interest. This difference is called the 'target difference' and should be appropriate for the principal estimand of interest and determined by the primary aim of the study. The target difference between treatments should be considered realistic and/or important by one or more key stakeholder groups. OBJECTIVE The objective of the report is to provide practical help on the choice of target difference used in the sample size calculation for a randomised controlled trial for researchers and funder representatives. METHODS The Difference ELicitation in TriAls2 (DELTA2) recommendations and advice were developed through a five-stage process, which included two literature reviews of existing funder guidance and recent methodological literature; a Delphi process to engage with a wider group of stakeholders; a 2-day workshop; and finalising the core document. RESULTS Advice is provided for definitive trials (Phase III/IV studies). Methods for choosing the target difference are reviewed. To aid those new to the topic, and to encourage better practice, 10 recommendations are made regarding choosing the target difference and undertaking a sample size calculation. Recommended reporting items for trial proposal, protocols and results papers under the conventional approach are also provided. Case studies reflecting different trial designs and covering different conditions are provided. Alternative trial designs and methods for choosing the sample size are also briefly considered. CONCLUSIONS Choosing an appropriate sample size is crucial if a study is to inform clinical practice. The number of patients recruited into the trial needs to be sufficient to answer the objectives; however, the number should not be higher than necessary to avoid unnecessary burden on patients and wasting precious resources. The choice of the target difference is a key part of this process under the conventional approach to sample size calculations. This document provides advice and recommendations to improve practice and reporting regarding this aspect of trial design. Future work could extend the work to address other less common approaches to the sample size calculations, particularly in terms of appropriate reporting items. FUNDING Funded by the Medical Research Council (MRC) UK and the National Institute for Health Research as part of the MRC-National Institute for Health Research Methodology Research programme.

[1]  S. Durham,et al.  Clarithromycin and endoscopic sinus surgery for adults with chronic rhinosinusitis with and without nasal polyps: study protocol for the MACRO randomised controlled trial , 2019, Trials.

[2]  Sander Greenland,et al.  Scientists rise up against statistical significance , 2019, Nature.

[3]  S. Durham,et al.  Expert panel process to optimise the design of a randomised controlled trial in chronic rhinosinusitis (the MACRO programme) , 2018, Trials.

[4]  R. Fitzpatrick,et al.  Sample size calculations are poorly conducted and reported in many randomized trials of hip and knee osteoarthritis: results of a systematic review. , 2018, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[5]  Richard Emsley,et al.  Choosing the target difference and undertaking and reporting the sample size calculation for a randomised controlled trial – the development of the DELTA2 guidance , 2018, Trials.

[6]  D. Beaton,et al.  Minimal Clinically Important Difference: A Review of Outcome Measure Score Interpretation. , 2018, Rheumatic diseases clinics of North America.

[7]  Chul Ahn,et al.  Sample size considerations for split-mouth design , 2017, Statistical methods in medical research.

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

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

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

[11]  Norbert Benda,et al.  Disentangling estimands and the intention‐to‐treat principle , 2017, Pharmaceutical statistics.

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

[13]  Wess A. Cohen,et al.  Defining a Research Agenda for Patient-Reported Outcomes in Surgery: Using a Delphi Survey of Stakeholders. , 2016, JAMA surgery.

[14]  Hui-Yi Lin,et al.  Strategies for power calculations in predictive biomarker studies in survival data , 2016, Oncotarget.

[15]  Eilidh M Duncan,et al.  An Audit and Feedback Intervention for Reducing Antibiotic Prescribing in General Dental Practice: The RAPiD Cluster Randomised Controlled Trial , 2016, PLoS medicine.

[16]  M. Campbell,et al.  Stepped wedge cluster randomised trials: a review of the statistical methodology used and available , 2016, BMC Medical Research Methodology.

[17]  Expected Value of Sample Information with Imperfect Implementation , 2016, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[18]  Ariel M. Aloe,et al.  How to communicate effect sizes for continuous outcomes: a review of existing options and introducing a new metric. , 2016, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[19]  N. Menzies An Efficient Estimator for the Expected Value of Sample Information , 2016, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[20]  Lazaros Andronis,et al.  Adjusting Estimates of the Expected Value of Information for Implementation , 2016, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[21]  B. Cesana,et al.  Sample size calculations in clinical research should also be based on ethical principles , 2016, Trials.

[22]  Christopher D. Arendt,et al.  Selection of the effect size for sample size determination for a continuous response in a superiority clinical trial using a hybrid classical and Bayesian procedure , 2016, Clinical trials.

[23]  Steven A Julious,et al.  Estimating the sample size for a pilot randomised trial to minimise the overall trial sample size for the external pilot and main trial for a continuous outcome variable , 2015, Statistical methods in medical research.

[24]  Steven A Julious,et al.  Practical guide to sample size calculations: superiority trials. , 2016, Pharmaceutical statistics.

[25]  Gernot Wassmer,et al.  Group Sequential and Confirmatory Adaptive Designs in Clinical Trials , 2016 .

[26]  Steven A Julious,et al.  Practical guide to sample size calculations: non‐inferiority and equivalence trials , 2016, Pharmaceutical statistics.

[27]  Steven A Julious,et al.  Practical guide to sample size calculations: an introduction , 2016, Pharmaceutical statistics.

[28]  R. Emsley,et al.  Evaluation and validation of social and psychological markers in randomised trials of complex interventions in mental health: a methodological research programme. , 2015, Health technology assessment.

[29]  D. Beard,et al.  Nail bed INJury Assessment Pilot (NINJA-P) study: should the nail plate be replaced or discarded after nail bed repair in children? Study protocol for a pilot randomised controlled trial , 2015, Pilot and Feasibility Studies.

[30]  G. Guyatt,et al.  Although not consistently superior, the absolute approach to framing the minimally important difference has advantages over the relative approach. , 2015, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[31]  Andrew M. Wilson,et al.  Managing chronic rhinosinusitis and respiratory disease: a qualitative study of triggers and interactions , 2015, The Journal of asthma : official journal of the Association for the Care of Asthma.

[32]  Andrew Copas,et al.  Methods for sample size determination in cluster randomized trials , 2015, International journal of epidemiology.

[33]  Hawre Jalal,et al.  Computing Expected Value of Partial Sample Information from Probabilistic Sensitivity Analysis Using Linear Regression Metamodeling , 2015, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[34]  Junhui Wang,et al.  Minimum clinically important difference in medical studies , 2015, Biometrics.

[35]  Nicky J. Welton,et al.  Accounting for Heterogeneity in Relative Treatment Effects for Use in Cost-Effectiveness Models and Value-of-Information Analyses , 2015, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[36]  P. Dorman,et al.  Long-term outcomes after stenting versus endarterectomy for treatment of symptomatic carotid stenosis: the International Carotid Stenting Study (ICSS) randomised trial , 2015, The Lancet.

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

[38]  David W. Murray,et al.  Meaningful changes for the Oxford hip and knee scores after joint replacement surgery , 2015, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[39]  A. Brennan,et al.  Valuing Trial Designs from a Pharmaceutical Perspective Using Value-Based Pricing. , 2013, Health economics.

[40]  M. Cowie National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. , 2015, European heart journal.

[41]  Lisa V. Hampson,et al.  Elicitation of Expert Prior Opinion: Application to the MYPAN Trial in Childhood Polyarteritis Nodosa , 2015, Pediatric Rheumatology.

[42]  E. Wilson A Practical Guide to Value of Information Analysis , 2015, PharmacoEconomics.

[43]  W. Fokkens,et al.  Surgical versus medical interventions for chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps. , 2014, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.

[44]  Anthony O'Hagan,et al.  Robust meta‐analytic‐predictive priors in clinical trials with historical control information , 2014, Biometrics.

[45]  C. Hopkins,et al.  Surgical interventions for chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps. , 2014, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.

[46]  S. Julious,et al.  Estimating effect sizes for health-related quality of life outcomes , 2014, Statistical methods in medical research.

[47]  G. Murray,et al.  Integrated collaborative care for comorbid major depression in patients with cancer (SMaRT Oncology-2): a multicentre randomised controlled effectiveness trial , 2014, The Lancet.

[48]  R. Riley,et al.  Meta-analysis of randomized phase II trials to inform subsequent phase III decisions , 2014, Trials.

[49]  C. Philpott,et al.  Preliminary Findings: The Feasibility Study for a Randomized Controlled Trial of Clarithromycin in Chronic Rhinosinusitis , 2014 .

[50]  P. Royston,et al.  An approach to trial design and analysis in the era of non-proportional hazards of the treatment effect , 2014 .

[51]  Carol Coupland,et al.  Predicting risk of upper gastrointestinal bleed and intracranial bleed with anticoagulants: cohort study to derive and validate the QBleed scores , 2014, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[52]  M. Teare,et al.  Sample size requirements to estimate key design parameters from external pilot randomised controlled trials: a simulation study , 2014, Trials.

[53]  L. Phillips,et al.  Balancing benefit and risk of medicines: a systematic review and classification of available methodologies , 2014, Pharmacoepidemiology and drug safety.

[54]  R. Harvey,et al.  The fate of chronic rhinosinusitis sufferers after maximal medical therapy , 2014, International forum of allergy & rhinology.

[55]  Lisa V Hampson,et al.  Bayesian methods for the design and interpretation of clinical trials in very rare diseases , 2014, Statistics in medicine.

[56]  Ruth Thomas,et al.  Use of drug therapy in the management of symptomatic ureteric stones in hospitalized adults (SUSPEND), a multicentre, placebo-controlled, randomized trial of a calcium-channel blocker (nifedipine) and an α-blocker (tamsulosin): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial , 2014, Trials.

[57]  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.

[58]  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.

[59]  J. Clarkson,et al.  Evaluating an audit and feedback intervention for reducing antibiotic prescribing behaviour in general dental practice (the RAPiD trial): a partial factorial cluster randomised trial protocol , 2014, Implementation Science.

[60]  P. Marriott,et al.  An Optimization Approach to Calculating Sample Sizes With Binary Responses , 2014, Journal of biopharmaceutical statistics.

[61]  Deborah M Caldwell,et al.  Expected Value of Sample Information for Multi-Arm Cluster Randomized Trials with Binary Outcomes , 2014, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[62]  F. Guillemin,et al.  The minimal clinically important difference determined using item response theory models: an attempt to solve the issue of the association with baseline score. , 2014, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[63]  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.

[64]  E. Batistatou,et al.  Sample Size and Power Calculations for Trials and Quasi-Experimental Studies with Clustering , 2014 .

[65]  Ray Fitzpatrick,et al.  A randomised controlled trial of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of different knee prostheses: the Knee Arthroplasty Trial (KAT). , 2014, Health technology assessment.

[66]  J. Madan,et al.  Strategies for Efficient Computation of the Expected Value of Partial Perfect Information , 2014, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[67]  Jeremy E. Oakley,et al.  Estimating Multiparameter Partial Expected Value of Perfect Information from a Probabilistic Sensitivity Analysis Sample , 2013, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[68]  R. Evans National Institute for Health Research. , 2014, Nursing standard (Royal College of Nursing (Great Britain) : 1987).

[69]  J. P. Gosling Methods for eliciting expert opinion to inform health technology assessment , 2014 .

[70]  M. Fay An alternative property for evaluating sample size for normal data using preliminary data , 2013, Clinical trials.

[71]  T. Bengtsson,et al.  Sample size and threshold estimation for clinical trials with predictive biomarkers. , 2013, Contemporary clinical trials.

[72]  S. Julious,et al.  An audit of sample sizes for pilot and feasibility trials being undertaken in the United Kingdom registered in the United Kingdom Clinical Research Network database , 2013, BMC Medical Research Methodology.

[73]  MOHSEN SADATSAFAVI,et al.  Two-level resampling as a novel method for the calculation of the expected value of sample information in economic trials. , 2013, Health economics.

[74]  Nanhua Zhang,et al.  Caution regarding the choice of standard deviations to guide sample size calculations in clinical trials , 2013, Clinical trials.

[75]  Morris L. Eaton,et al.  On the Limiting Behavior of the “Probability of Claiming Superiority” in a Bayesian Context , 2013 .

[76]  D. Rennie,et al.  SPIRIT 2013 statement: defining standard protocol items for clinical trials. , 2013, Annals of internal medicine.

[77]  Lisa V. Hampson,et al.  Cost–utility analysis conducted alongside randomized controlled trials: Are economic end points considered in sample size calculations and does it matter? , 2013, Clinical trials.

[78]  D. Torgerson,et al.  Sample size calculations for pilot randomized trials: a confidence interval approach. , 2013, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[79]  Andrew R Willan,et al.  Determining optimal sample sizes for multistage adaptive randomized clinical trials from an industry perspective using value of information methods , 2013, Clinical trials.

[80]  J. Ranstam,et al.  Treatment for acute anterior cruciate ligament tear: five year outcome of randomised trial , 2013, BMJ.

[81]  Thomas Jaki,et al.  Optimal design of multi‐arm multi‐stage trials , 2012, Statistics in medicine.

[82]  A. Willan,et al.  Value of Information and Pricing New Healthcare Interventions , 2012, PharmacoEconomics.

[83]  C H Mallinckrodt,et al.  A structured approach to choosing estimands and estimators in longitudinal clinical trials , 2012, Pharmaceutical statistics.

[84]  Andrew R Willan,et al.  Accounting for between-study variation in incremental net benefit in value of information methodology. , 2012, Health economics.

[85]  C Chuang-Stein,et al.  Discounting phase 2 results when planning phase 3 clinical trials , 2012, Pharmaceutical statistics.

[86]  C. Coffey,et al.  Adaptive trial designs: a review of barriers and opportunities , 2012, Trials.

[87]  Jane M Blazeby,et al.  Developing core outcome sets for clinical trials: issues to consider , 2012, Trials.

[88]  J. Wittes,et al.  Some thoughts on sample size: A Bayesian-frequentist hybrid approach , 2012, Clinical trials.

[89]  Jane M. Young,et al.  Audit and feedback: effects on professional practice and healthcare outcomes. , 2012, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.

[90]  H. Lemij,et al.  Surveillance for ocular hypertension: an evidence synthesis and economic evaluation. , 2012, Health technology assessment.

[91]  Mgo,et al.  Software to support expert elicitation : An exploratory study of existing software packages , 2012 .

[92]  W. Gregory,et al.  Expected Net Present Value of Sample Information , 2012, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[93]  Selphee Tang,et al.  Is it possible to estimate the minimal clinically important treatment effect needed to change practice in preterm birth prevention? Results of an obstetrician survey used to support the design of a trial , 2012, BMC Medical Research Methodology.

[94]  M. Ferreira,et al.  A critical review of methods used to determine the smallest worthwhile effect of interventions for low back pain. , 2012, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[95]  Steven A Julious,et al.  Sample sizes for trials involving multiple correlated must‐win comparisons , 2012, Pharmaceutical statistics.

[96]  Toshimitsu Hamasaki,et al.  A convenient formula for sample size calculations in clinical trials with multiple co‐primary continuous endpoints , 2012, Pharmaceutical statistics.

[97]  Julius Sim,et al.  The size of a pilot study for a clinical trial should be calculated in relation to considerations of precision and efficiency. , 2012, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[98]  R. Douglas,et al.  Efficacy of medical therapy in treatment of chronic rhinosinusitis , 2012, Allergy & rhinology.

[99]  C. Seiler,et al.  Clustering in surgical trials - database of intracluster correlations , 2011, Trials.

[100]  Andrew R. Willan,et al.  Sample Size Determination for Cost-Effectiveness Trials , 2011, PharmacoEconomics.

[101]  H. Glick Sample Size and Power for Cost-Effectiveness Analysis (Part 2) , 2011, PharmacoEconomics.

[102]  H. Glick Sample Size and Power for Cost-Effectiveness Analysis (Part 1) , 2011, PharmacoEconomics.

[103]  V. Retèl,et al.  A Systematic and Critical Review of the Evolving Methods and Applications of Value of Information in Academia and Practice , 2012, PharmacoEconomics.

[104]  Ron D. Hays,et al.  The Concept of Clinically Meaningful Difference in Health-Related Quality-of-Life Research , 2012, PharmacoEconomics.

[105]  A. Stone,et al.  Multiplicity adjustments in trials with two correlated comparisons of interest , 2011, Statistical methods in medical research.

[106]  S. Julious The ABC of non‐inferiority margin setting from indirect comparisons , 2011, Pharmaceutical statistics.

[107]  J. Lindesay,et al.  Determining the minimum clinically important differences for outcomes in the DOMINO trial , 2011, International journal of geriatric psychiatry.

[108]  C. Ramsay,et al.  Urinary incontinence in men after formal one-to-one pelvic-floor muscle training following radical prostatectomy or transurethral resection of the prostate (MAPS): two parallel randomised controlled trials , 2011, The Lancet.

[109]  Nigel Dallow,et al.  The perils with the misuse of predictive power. , 2011, Pharmaceutical statistics.

[110]  H. Draper,et al.  Using e-mail recruitment and an online questionnaire to establish effect size: A worked example , 2011, BMC medical research methodology.

[111]  Christy Chuang-Stein,et al.  The role of the minimum clinically important difference and its impact on designing a trial , 2011, Pharmaceutical statistics.

[112]  Patrick Royston,et al.  Designs for clinical trials with time-to-event outcomes based on stopping guidelines for lack of benefit , 2011, Trials.

[113]  Karl Claxton,et al.  Addressing Adoption and Research Design Decisions Simultaneously , 2011, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[114]  J. Norrie,et al.  Internal limiting membrane peeling versus no peeling for idiopathic full-thickness macular hole: a pragmatic randomized controlled trial. , 2011, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[115]  Elena Losina,et al.  Development and preliminary validation of a meniscal symptom index , 2011, Arthritis care & research.

[116]  Jonas Ranstam,et al.  A randomized trial of treatment for acute anterior cruciate ligament tears. , 2010, The New England journal of medicine.

[117]  M. Campbell,et al.  What is a pilot or feasibility study? A review of current practice and editorial policy , 2010, BMC medical research methodology.

[118]  Sally Hopewell,et al.  Clinical trials should begin and end with systematic reviews of relevant evidence: 12 years and waiting , 2010, The Lancet.

[119]  Richard Emsley,et al.  Ian R White interventions Mediation and moderation of treatment effects in randomised controlled trials of complex , 2010 .

[120]  D. Machin,et al.  An Introduction to Statistics in Early Phase Trials , 2010 .

[121]  D. Moher,et al.  CONSORT 2010 Statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials , 2010, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[122]  Peter Bacchetti,et al.  Current sample size conventions: Flaws, harms, and alternatives , 2010, BMC medicine.

[123]  L. Thabane,et al.  Association between framing of the research question using the PICOT format and reporting quality of randomized controlled trials , 2010, BMC medical research methodology.

[124]  D. Spiegelhalter,et al.  Summarizing historical information on controls in clinical trials , 2010, Clinical trials.

[125]  A. Ismaila,et al.  A tutorial on pilot studies: the what, why and how , 2010, BMC Medical Research Methodology.

[126]  K. Gadde,et al.  Sample Size in Obesity Trials: Patient Perspective Versus Current Practice , 2010, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[127]  C. Terwee,et al.  Three ways to quantify uncertainty in individually applied "minimally important change" values. , 2010, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[128]  Stephen Senn,et al.  Measurement in clinical trials: A neglected issue for statisticians? , 2009, Statistics in medicine.

[129]  J. Wittes Commentary on ‘Measurement in clinical trials: A neglected issue for statisticians?’ , 2009, Statistics in medicine.

[130]  Stephen J. Walters,et al.  Quality of Life Outcomes in Clinical Trials and Health-Care Evaluation: A Practical Guide to Analysis and Interpretation , 2009 .

[131]  A. Beelen,et al.  Cervical collar or physiotherapy versus wait and see policy for recent onset cervical radiculopathy: randomised trial , 2009, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

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

[133]  K. Carroll,et al.  Back to basics: explaining sample size in outcome trials, are statisticians doing a thorough job? , 2009, Pharmaceutical statistics.

[134]  V. Lund,et al.  Psychometric validity of the 22‐item Sinonasal Outcome Test , 2009, Clinical otolaryngology : official journal of ENT-UK ; official journal of Netherlands Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology & Cervico-Facial Surgery.

[135]  Stephen J. Walters,et al.  Quality of life outcomes in clinical trials and health-care evaluation , 2009 .

[136]  Sa Kabanarou,et al.  Macular hole surgery with and without internal limiting membrane peeling , 2009 .

[137]  Steven A. Julious,et al.  Sample Sizes for Clinical Trials , 2009 .

[138]  M. Parmar,et al.  Issues in applying multi-arm multi-stage methodology to a clinical trial in prostate cancer: the MRC STAMPEDE trial , 2009, Trials.

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

[140]  Nicola J Cooper,et al.  Evidence synthesis as the key to more coherent and efficient research , 2009, BMC medical research methodology.

[141]  Michael A Proschan,et al.  Sample size re‐estimation in clinical trials , 2009, Biometrical journal. Biometrische Zeitschrift.

[142]  Stephen J Walters,et al.  Consultants' forum: should post hoc sample size calculations be done? , 2009, Pharmaceutical statistics.

[143]  J. Gittins,et al.  The choice of sample size: a mixed Bayesian / frequentist approach , 2009, Statistical methods in medical research.

[144]  Using Historical Lesion Volume Data in the Design of a New Phase II Clinical Trial in Acute Stroke , 2009, Stroke.

[145]  T. Trikalinos,et al.  Are unadjusted analyses of clinical trials inappropriately biased toward the null? , 2009, Stroke.

[146]  Andrew D Oxman,et al.  Outcomes of patients who participate in randomized controlled trials compared to similar patients receiving similar interventions who do not participate. , 2008, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.

[147]  Gordon Graham,et al.  Bayesian sample size for exploratory clinical trials incorporating historical data , 2008, Statistics in medicine.

[148]  Julian P T Higgins,et al.  Recent developments in meta‐analysis , 2008, Statistics in medicine.

[149]  David Cella,et al.  Interpreting the clinical importance of treatment outcomes in chronic pain clinical trials: IMMPACT recommendations. , 2008, The journal of pain : official journal of the American Pain Society.

[150]  T. Hakulinen,et al.  A Greenwood formula for standard error of the age-standardised relative survival ratio. , 2008, European journal of cancer.

[151]  Mandy Ryan,et al.  Using discrete choice experiments to value health and health care , 2008 .

[152]  George F Borm,et al.  A simple sample size formula for analysis of covariance in randomized clinical trials. , 2007, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[153]  H. Alter,et al.  A Systematic Review of Medical Therapy to Facilitate Passage of Ureteral Calculi , 2007 .

[154]  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.

[155]  A. Page,et al.  Evaluating the clinical significance of responses by psychiatric inpatients to the mental health subscales of the SF-36. , 2007, Journal of affective disorders.

[156]  K. Hunter,et al.  Conservative management for postprostatectomy urinary incontinence. , 2007, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.

[157]  Christy Chuang-Stein,et al.  Sample size and the probability of a successful trial , 2006, Pharmaceutical statistics.

[158]  D. Ashby,et al.  Sample size for cluster randomized trials: effect of coefficient of variation of cluster size and analysis method. , 2006, International journal of epidemiology.

[159]  Sanjay Saint,et al.  Medical therapy to facilitate urinary stone passage: a meta-analysis , 2006, The Lancet.

[160]  Jeremy E. Oakley,et al.  Uncertain Judgements: Eliciting Experts' Probabilities , 2006 .

[161]  H. Kraemer,et al.  Caution regarding the use of pilot studies to guide power calculations for study proposals. , 2006, Archives of general psychiatry.

[162]  D. Altman,et al.  Protocol for the Arterial Revascularisation Trial (ART). A randomised trial to compare survival following bilateral versus single internal mammary grafting in coronary revascularisation [ISRCTN46552265] , 2006, Trials.

[163]  P. Bauer,et al.  The reassessment of trial perspectives from interim data—a critical view , 2006, Statistics in medicine.

[164]  N. Koyama Discussion about Points to Consider on Switching between Superiority and Non-inferiority & Guideline on the Choice of Non-inferiority Margin , 2006 .

[165]  I. White Uses and limitations of randomization-based efficacy estimators , 2005, Statistical methods in medical research.

[166]  Graham Dunn,et al.  Estimating treatment effects from randomized clinical trials with noncompliance and loss to follow-up: the role of instrumental variable methods , 2005, Statistical methods in medical research.

[167]  G. Muzzonigro,et al.  Randomized trial of the efficacy of tamsulosin, nifedipine and phloroglucinol in medical expulsive therapy for distal ureteral calculi. , 2005, The Journal of urology.

[168]  K. Schulz,et al.  Multiplicity in randomised trials II: subgroup and interim analyses , 2005, The Lancet.

[169]  Roger L. Brown,et al.  Sufficiently Important Difference: Expanding the Framework of Clinical Significance , 2005, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[170]  Kenneth F Schulz,et al.  Multiplicity in randomised trials I: endpoints and treatments , 2005, The Lancet.

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

[172]  Chris Roberts,et al.  Design and analysis of clinical trials with clustering effects due to treatment , 2005, Clinical trials.

[173]  P. Fayers,et al.  Determinants of the intracluster correlation coefficient in cluster randomized trials: the case of implementation research , 2005, Clinical trials.

[174]  D. Tu,et al.  Morphine, gabapentin, or their combination for neuropathic pain. , 2005, The New England journal of medicine.

[175]  S. Lange,et al.  Choice of delta: requirements and reality--results of a systematic review. , 2005, Biometrical journal. Biometrische Zeitschrift.

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

[177]  G. Norman,et al.  The truly remarkable universality of half a standard deviation: confirmation through another look , 2004, Expert review of pharmacoeconomics & outcomes research.

[178]  C. Fiori,et al.  Nifedipine versus tamsulosin for the management of lower ureteral stones. , 2004, The Journal of urology.

[179]  S. Julious Sample sizes for clinical trials with Normal data , 2004, Statistics in medicine.

[180]  S. Walters Sample size and power estimation for studies with health related quality of life outcomes: a comparison of four methods using the SF-36 , 2004, Health and quality of life outcomes.

[181]  Sara T Brookes,et al.  Subgroup analyses in randomized trials: risks of subgroup-specific analyses; power and sample size for the interaction test. , 2004, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

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

[183]  E. Roos,et al.  The Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS): from joint injury to osteoarthritis , 2003, Health and quality of life outcomes.

[184]  M. Gonen Planning for subgroup analysis: a case study of treatment-marker interaction in metastatic colorectal cancer. , 2003 .

[185]  G. Norman,et al.  Interpretation of Changes in Health-related Quality of Life: The Remarkable Universality of Half a Standard Deviation , 2003, Medical care.

[186]  J. Norrie,et al.  The role of covariates in estimating treatment effects and risk in long‐term clinical trials , 2002, Statistics in medicine.

[187]  J. Karlawish,et al.  The continuing unethical conduct of underpowered clinical trials. , 2002, JAMA.

[188]  Janet Wittes,et al.  Sample size calculations for randomized controlled trials. , 2002, Epidemiologic reviews.

[189]  E. E. Hartmann,et al.  The Ocular Hypertension Treatment Study: a randomized trial determines that topical ocular hypotensive medication delays or prevents the onset of primary open-angle glaucoma. , 2002, Archives of ophthalmology.

[190]  D. Cella,et al.  Group vs individual approaches to understanding the clinical significance of differences or changes in quality of life. , 2002, Mayo Clinic proceedings.

[191]  Gordon H Guyatt,et al.  Methods to explain the clinical significance of health status measures. , 2002, Mayo Clinic proceedings.

[192]  Kenneth F Schulz,et al.  For Personal Use. Only Reproduce with Permission from the Lancet Publishing Group. Exclusions before Randomisation Exclusions after Randomisation Sample Size Slippages in Randomised Trials: Exclusions and the Lost and Wayward , 2022 .

[193]  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.

[194]  B. Wiens,et al.  Choosing an equivalence limit for noninferiority or equivalence studies. , 2002, Controlled clinical trials.

[195]  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.

[196]  Douglas G Altman,et al.  Effect of arterial revascularisation on survival: a systematic review of studies comparing bilateral and single internal mammary arteries , 2001, The Lancet.

[197]  D. Spiegelhalter,et al.  Monitoring of large randomised clinical trials: a new approach with Bayesian methods , 2001, The Lancet.

[198]  K. Chaloner,et al.  Quantifying and documenting prior beliefs in clinical trials , 2001, Statistics in medicine.

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

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

[201]  Allan Donner,et al.  Design and Analysis of Cluster Randomization Trials in Health Research , 2001 .

[202]  H. Brooks,et al.  Macular hole surgery with and without internal limiting membrane peeling. , 2000, Ophthalmology (Rochester, Minn.).

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

[204]  R. Brant,et al.  Examining the minimum important difference. , 1999, Statistics in medicine.

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

[206]  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.

[207]  R. Sylvester,et al.  Sample size estimation in phase III cancer clinical trials. , 1999, European journal of surgical oncology : the journal of the European Society of Surgical Oncology and the British Association of Surgical Oncology.

[208]  J. Sahel,et al.  Effect of autologous platelet concentrate in surgery for idiopathic macular hole: results of a multicenter, double-masked, randomized trial. Platelets in Macular Hole Surgery Group. , 1999, Ophthalmology.

[209]  J. Sterne,et al.  Methods for evaluating area-wide and organisation-based interventions in health and health care: a systematic review. , 1999, Health technology assessment.

[210]  ICH Harmonised Tripartite Guideline. Statistical principles for clinical trials. International Conference on Harmonisation E9 Expert Working Group. , 1999, Statistics in medicine.

[211]  J M Bland,et al.  Statistics notes: Sample size in cluster randomisation , 1998, BMJ.

[212]  David Braunholtz,et al.  Why “underpowered” trials are not necessarily unethical , 1997, The Lancet.

[213]  Stephen Senn,et al.  Statistical Issues in Drug Development , 1997 .

[214]  L. Joseph,et al.  Bayesian sample size determination for normal means and differences between normal means , 1997 .

[215]  David Machin,et al.  Sample Size Tables for Clinical Studies , 1997 .

[216]  J A Lewis,et al.  Trials to assess equivalence: the importance of rigorous methods , 1996, BMJ.

[217]  Richard J. Cook,et al.  Multiplicity Considerations in the Design and Analysis of Clinical Trials , 1996 .

[218]  R. H. Browne On the use of a pilot sample for sample size determination. , 1995, Statistics in medicine.

[219]  D. Torgerson,et al.  Economics in sample size determination for clinical trials. , 1995, QJM : monthly journal of the Association of Physicians.

[220]  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.

[221]  D J Spiegelhalter,et al.  The CHART trials: Bayesian design and monitoring in practice. CHART Steering Committee. , 1994, Statistics in medicine.

[222]  Raphael Gillett,et al.  An average power criterion for sample size estimation , 1994 .

[223]  Stephen Senn,et al.  Cross-over trials in clinical research , 1993 .

[224]  N. Bellamy,et al.  Rheumatoid arthritis antirheumatic drug trials. III. Setting the delta for clinical trials of antirheumatic drugs--results of a consensus development (Delphi) exercise. , 1991, The Journal of rheumatology.

[225]  N. Jacobson,et al.  Clinical significance: a statistical approach to defining meaningful change in psychotherapy research. , 1991, Journal of consulting and clinical psychology.

[226]  Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study design and baseline patient characteristics. ETDRS report number 7. , 1991, Ophthalmology.

[227]  A S Detsky,et al.  Using cost-effectiveness analysis to improve the efficiency of allocating funds to clinical trials. , 1990, Statistics in medicine.

[228]  G. Guyatt,et al.  Measurement of health status. Ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference. , 1989, Controlled clinical trials.

[229]  E N Atkinson,et al.  Projection from previous studies: a Bayesian and frequentist compromise. , 1987, Controlled clinical trials.

[230]  G Rose,et al.  Sick individuals and sick populations. , 1985, International journal of epidemiology.

[231]  W. Kannel,et al.  Serum lipid precursors of coronary heart disease. , 1971, Human pathology.