Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Trials 1/2018

Open Access 01-12-2018 | Research

Choosing the target difference and undertaking and reporting the sample size calculation for a randomised controlled trial – the development of the DELTA2 guidance

Authors: William Sones, Steven A. Julious, Joanne C. Rothwell, Craig Robert Ramsay, Lisa V. Hampson, Richard Emsley, Stephen J. Walters, Catherine Hewitt, Martin Bland, Dean A. Fergusson, Jesse A. Berlin, Doug Altman, Luke David Vale, Jonathan Alistair Cook

Published in: Trials | Issue 1/2018

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

A key step in the design of a randomised controlled trial is the estimation of the number of participants needed. The most common approach is to specify a target difference in the primary outcome between the randomised groups and then estimate the corresponding sample size. The sample size is chosen to provide reassurance that the trial will have high statistical power to detect the target difference at the planned statistical significance level. Alternative approaches are also available, though most still require specification of a target difference.
The sample size has many implications for the conduct of the study, as well as incurring scientific and ethical aspects. Despite the critical role of the target difference for the primary outcome in the design of a randomised controlled trial (RCT), the manner in which it is determined has received little attention. This article reports the development of the DELTA2 guidance on the specification and reporting of the target difference for the primary outcome in a sample size calculation for a RCT.

Methods

The DELTA2 (Difference ELicitation in TriAls) project has five components comprising systematic literature reviews of recent methodological developments (stage 1) and existing funder guidance (stage 2), a Delphi study (stage 3), a 2-day consensus meeting bringing together researchers, funders and patient representatives (stage 4), and the preparation and dissemination of a guidance document (stage 5).

Results

The project started in April 2016. The literature search identified 28 articles of methodological developments relevant to a method for specifying a target difference. A Delphi study involving 69 participants, along with a 2-day consensus meeting were conducted. In addition, further engagement sessions were held at two international conferences. The main guidance text was finalised on April 18, 2018, after revision informed by feedback gathered from stages 2 and 3 and from funder representatives.

Discussion

The DELTA2 Delphi study identified a number of areas (such as practical recommendations and examples, greater coverage of different trial designs and statistical approaches) of particular interest amongst stakeholders which new guidance was desired to meet. New relevant references were identified by the review. Such findings influenced the scope, drafting and revision of the guidance. While not all suggestions could be accommodated, it is hoped that the process has led to a more useful and practical document.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
go back to reference Bland JM. The tyranny of power: is there a better way to calculate sample size? BMJ. 2009;339:b3985.CrossRef Bland JM. The tyranny of power: is there a better way to calculate sample size? BMJ. 2009;339:b3985.CrossRef
2.
go back to reference Cook JA, et al. Assessing methods to specify the target difference for a randomised controlled trial: DELTA (Difference ELicitation in TriAls) review. Health Technol Assess. 2014;18(28):v–vi 1–175.CrossRef Cook JA, et al. Assessing methods to specify the target difference for a randomised controlled trial: DELTA (Difference ELicitation in TriAls) review. Health Technol Assess. 2014;18(28):v–vi 1–175.CrossRef
3.
go back to reference Julious S. Sample sizes for clinical trials. Boca Raton: Chapman and Hall/CRC Press; 2010. Julious S. Sample sizes for clinical trials. Boca Raton: Chapman and Hall/CRC Press; 2010.
4.
go back to reference Cook J, et al. Specifying the target difference in the primary outcome for a randomised controlled trial: guidance for researchers. Trials. 2015;16:12.CrossRef Cook J, et al. Specifying the target difference in the primary outcome for a randomised controlled trial: guidance for researchers. Trials. 2015;16:12.CrossRef
5.
go back to reference Cook JA, et al. Choosing the target difference (‘effect size’) for a randomised controlled trial - DELTA2 guidance protocol. Trials. 2017;18(1):271.CrossRef Cook JA, et al. Choosing the target difference (‘effect size’) for a randomised controlled trial - DELTA2 guidance protocol. Trials. 2017;18(1):271.CrossRef
6.
go back to reference Hislop J, et al. Methods for specifying the target difference in a randomised controlled trial: the Difference ELicitation in TriAls (DELTA) systematic review. PLoS Med. 2014;11(5):e1001645.CrossRef Hislop J, et al. Methods for specifying the target difference in a randomised controlled trial: the Difference ELicitation in TriAls (DELTA) systematic review. PLoS Med. 2014;11(5):e1001645.CrossRef
8.
go back to reference Glick HA. Sample size and power for cost-effectiveness analysis (part 1). Pharmacoeconomics. 2011;29(3):189–98.CrossRef Glick HA. Sample size and power for cost-effectiveness analysis (part 1). Pharmacoeconomics. 2011;29(3):189–98.CrossRef
9.
go back to reference Glick HA. Sample size and power for cost-effectiveness analysis (part 2): the effect of maximum willingness to pay. Pharmacoeconomics. 2011;29(4):287–96.CrossRef Glick HA. Sample size and power for cost-effectiveness analysis (part 2): the effect of maximum willingness to pay. Pharmacoeconomics. 2011;29(4):287–96.CrossRef
10.
go back to reference Willan AR. Sample size determination for cost-effectiveness trials. Pharmacoeconomics. 2011;29(11):933–49.CrossRef Willan AR. Sample size determination for cost-effectiveness trials. Pharmacoeconomics. 2011;29(11):933–49.CrossRef
11.
go back to reference Wilson EC. A practical guide to value of information analysis. Pharmacoeconomics. 2015;33(2):105–21.CrossRef Wilson EC. A practical guide to value of information analysis. Pharmacoeconomics. 2015;33(2):105–21.CrossRef
12.
go back to reference Ferreira ML, et al. A critical review of methods used to determine the smallest worthwhile effect of interventions for low back pain. J Clin Epidemiol. 2012;65(3):253–61.CrossRef Ferreira ML, et al. A critical review of methods used to determine the smallest worthwhile effect of interventions for low back pain. J Clin Epidemiol. 2012;65(3):253–61.CrossRef
13.
go back to reference Pezold ML, et al. Defining a research agenda for patient-reported outcomes in surgery: using a Delphi survey of stakeholders. JAMA Surg. 2016;151(10):930–6.CrossRef Pezold ML, et al. Defining a research agenda for patient-reported outcomes in surgery: using a Delphi survey of stakeholders. JAMA Surg. 2016;151(10):930–6.CrossRef
14.
go back to reference Williamson PR, et al. Developing core outcome sets for clinical trials: issues to consider. Trials. 2012;13:132.CrossRef Williamson PR, et al. Developing core outcome sets for clinical trials: issues to consider. Trials. 2012;13:132.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Choosing the target difference and undertaking and reporting the sample size calculation for a randomised controlled trial – the development of the DELTA2 guidance
Authors
William Sones
Steven A. Julious
Joanne C. Rothwell
Craig Robert Ramsay
Lisa V. Hampson
Richard Emsley
Stephen J. Walters
Catherine Hewitt
Martin Bland
Dean A. Fergusson
Jesse A. Berlin
Doug Altman
Luke David Vale
Jonathan Alistair Cook
Publication date
01-12-2018
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Trials / Issue 1/2018
Electronic ISSN: 1745-6215
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-018-2887-x

Other articles of this Issue 1/2018

Trials 1/2018 Go to the issue