Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Trials 1/2017

Open Access 01-12-2017 | Study protocol

Choosing the target difference (‘effect size’) for a randomised controlled trial - DELTA2 guidance protocol

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

Published in: Trials | Issue 1/2017

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

A key step in the design of a randomised controlled trial (RCT) is the estimation of the number of participants needed. By far the most common approach is to specify a target difference and then estimate the corresponding sample size; this sample size is chosen to provide reassurance that the trial will have high statistical power to detect such a difference between the randomised groups (at the planned statistical significance level). The sample size has many implications for the conduct of the study, as well as carrying scientific and ethical aspects to its choice. Despite the critical role of the target difference for the primary outcome in the design of an RCT, the manner in which it is determined has received little attention. This article reports the protocol of the Difference ELicitation in TriAls (DELTA2) project, which will produce guidance on the specification and reporting of the target difference for the primary outcome in a sample size calculation for RCTs.

Methods/design

The DELTA2 project has five components: 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, as well as one-off engagement sessions at relevant stakeholder meetings (stage 4); and the preparation and dissemination of a guidance document (stage 5).

Discussion

Specification of the target difference for the primary outcome is a key component of the design of an RCT. There is a need for better guidance for researchers and funders regarding specification and reporting of this aspect of trial design. The aim of this project is to produce consensus based guidance for researchers and funders.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
go back to reference Altman DG, Schulz KF, Moher D, Egger M, Davidoff F, Elbourne D, et al. The revised CONSORT statement for reporting randomized trials: explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med. 2001;134:663–94.CrossRef Altman DG, Schulz KF, Moher D, Egger M, Davidoff F, Elbourne D, et al. The revised CONSORT statement for reporting randomized trials: explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med. 2001;134:663–94.CrossRef
2.
go back to reference Julious SA. Sample sizes for clinical trials. Boca Raton: Chapman & Hall/CRC Press; 2010. Julious SA. Sample sizes for clinical trials. Boca Raton: Chapman & Hall/CRC Press; 2010.
3.
go back to reference Spiegelhalter DJ, Abrams KR, Myles JP. Bayesian approaches to clinical trials and health-care evaluation. Chicester: John Wiley & Sons; 2004. Spiegelhalter DJ, Abrams KR, Myles JP. Bayesian approaches to clinical trials and health-care evaluation. Chicester: John Wiley & Sons; 2004.
4.
go back to reference Charles P, Giraudeau B, Dechartres A, Baron G, Ravaud P. Reporting of sample size calculation in randomised controlled trials: review. BMJ. 2009;338:b1732.CrossRef Charles P, Giraudeau B, Dechartres A, Baron G, Ravaud P. Reporting of sample size calculation in randomised controlled trials: review. BMJ. 2009;338:b1732.CrossRef
5.
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
6.
go back to reference Stallard N, Miller F, Day S, Hee SW, Madan J, Zohar S, et al. Determination of the optimal sample size for a clinical trial accounting for the population size. Biom J. doi:10.1002/bimj.201500228. Stallard N, Miller F, Day S, Hee SW, Madan J, Zohar S, et al. Determination of the optimal sample size for a clinical trial accounting for the population size. Biom J. doi:10.​1002/​bimj.​201500228.
7.
go back to reference Pezeshk H. Bayesian techniques for sample size determination in clinical trials: a short review. Stat Methods Med Res. 2003;12:489–504.CrossRef Pezeshk H. Bayesian techniques for sample size determination in clinical trials: a short review. Stat Methods Med Res. 2003;12:489–504.CrossRef
8.
go back to reference Cook JA, Hislop J, Adewuyi TE, Harrild K, Altman DG, Ramsay CR, et al. Assessing methods to specify the targeted difference for a randomised controlled trial - DELTA (Difference ELicitation in TriAls) review. Health Technol Assess. 2014;18(28):1-175. Cook JA, Hislop J, Adewuyi TE, Harrild K, Altman DG, Ramsay CR, et al. Assessing methods to specify the targeted difference for a randomised controlled trial - DELTA (Difference ELicitation in TriAls) review. Health Technol Assess. 2014;18(28):1-175.
9.
go back to reference Hislop J, Adewuyi TE, Vale LD, Harrild K, Fraser C, Gurung T, 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:e1001645.CrossRef Hislop J, Adewuyi TE, Vale LD, Harrild K, Fraser C, Gurung T, 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:e1001645.CrossRef
10.
go back to reference Cook JA, Hislop JM, Altman DG, Briggs AH, Fayers PM, Norrie JD, et al. Use of methods for specifying the target difference in randomised controlled trial sample size calculations: two surveys of trialists’ practice. Clin Trials. 2014;11:300–8.CrossRef Cook JA, Hislop JM, Altman DG, Briggs AH, Fayers PM, Norrie JD, et al. Use of methods for specifying the target difference in randomised controlled trial sample size calculations: two surveys of trialists’ practice. Clin Trials. 2014;11:300–8.CrossRef
11.
go back to reference Jaeschke R, Singer J, Guyatt GH. Measurement of health status: ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference. Control Clin Trials. 1989;10:407–15.CrossRef Jaeschke R, Singer J, Guyatt GH. Measurement of health status: ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference. Control Clin Trials. 1989;10:407–15.CrossRef
12.
go back to reference Hays R, Woolley J. The concept of clinically meaningful difference in health-related quality-of-life research: how meaningful is it? Pharmacoeconomics. 2000;18:419–23.CrossRef Hays R, Woolley J. The concept of clinically meaningful difference in health-related quality-of-life research: how meaningful is it? Pharmacoeconomics. 2000;18:419–23.CrossRef
13.
go back to reference Chan KB, Man-Son-Hing M, Molnar FJ, Laupacis A. How well is the clinical importance of study results reported? An assessment of randomized controlled trials. CMAJ. 2001;165:1197–202.PubMedPubMedCentral Chan KB, Man-Son-Hing M, Molnar FJ, Laupacis A. How well is the clinical importance of study results reported? An assessment of randomized controlled trials. CMAJ. 2001;165:1197–202.PubMedPubMedCentral
14.
go back to reference Cook JA, Hislop J, Altman DG, Fayers P, Briggs AH, Ramsay CR, et al. Specifying the target difference in the primary outcome for a randomised controlled trial: guidance for researchers. Trials. 2015;16:12.CrossRef Cook JA, Hislop J, Altman DG, Fayers P, Briggs AH, Ramsay CR, et al. Specifying the target difference in the primary outcome for a randomised controlled trial: guidance for researchers. Trials. 2015;16:12.CrossRef
15.
go back to reference Hilton P, Armstrong N, Brennand C, Howel D, Shen J, Bryant A, et al. A mixed methods study to assess the feasibility of a randomised controlled trial of invasive urodynamic testing versus clinical assessment and non-invasive tests prior to surgery for stress urinary incontinence in women: the INVESTIGATE-I study. Trials. 2015;16:400.CrossRef Hilton P, Armstrong N, Brennand C, Howel D, Shen J, Bryant A, et al. A mixed methods study to assess the feasibility of a randomised controlled trial of invasive urodynamic testing versus clinical assessment and non-invasive tests prior to surgery for stress urinary incontinence in women: the INVESTIGATE-I study. Trials. 2015;16:400.CrossRef
16.
go back to reference Paul J. Targeted survival improvements in clinical trials: are you an absolutist or relativist? Cancer. 2015;121:335–8.CrossRef Paul J. Targeted survival improvements in clinical trials: are you an absolutist or relativist? Cancer. 2015;121:335–8.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Choosing the target difference (‘effect size’) for a randomised controlled trial - DELTA2 guidance protocol
Authors
Jonathan A. Cook
Steven A. Julious
William Sones
Joanne C. Rothwell
Craig R. Ramsay
Lisa V. Hampson
Richard Emsley
Stephen J. Walters
Catherine Hewitt
Martin Bland
Dean A. Fergusson
Jesse A. Berlin
Doug Altman
Luke D. Vale
Publication date
01-12-2017
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Trials / Issue 1/2017
Electronic ISSN: 1745-6215
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-017-1969-5

Other articles of this Issue 1/2017

Trials 1/2017 Go to the issue