Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Trials 1/2015

Open Access 01-12-2015 | Research

Specifying the target difference in the primary outcome for a randomised controlled trial: guidance for researchers

Authors: Jonathan A Cook, Jenni Hislop, Douglas G Altman, Peter Fayers, Andrew H Briggs, Craig R Ramsay, John D Norrie, Ian M Harvey, Brian Buckley, Dean Fergusson, Ian Ford, Luke D Vale, for the DELTA group

Published in: Trials | Issue 1/2015

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Central to the design of a randomised controlled trial is the calculation of the number of participants needed. This is typically achieved by specifying a target difference and calculating the corresponding sample size, which provides reassurance that the trial will have the required statistical power (at the planned statistical significance level) to identify whether a difference of a particular magnitude exists. Beyond pure statistical or scientific concerns, it is ethically imperative that an appropriate number of participants should be recruited. Despite the critical role of the target difference for the primary outcome in the design of randomised controlled trials, its determination has received surprisingly little attention. This article provides guidance on the specification of the target difference for the primary outcome in a sample size calculation for a two parallel group randomised controlled trial with a superiority question.

Methods

This work was part of the DELTA (Difference ELicitation in TriAls) project. Draft guidance was developed by the project steering and advisory groups utilising the results of the systematic review and surveys. Findings were circulated and presented to members of the combined group at a face-to-face meeting, along with a proposed outline of the guidance document structure, containing recommendations and reporting items for a trial protocol and report. The guidance and was subsequently drafted and circulated for further comment before finalisation.

Results

Guidance on specification of a target difference in the primary outcome for a two group parallel randomised controlled trial was produced. Additionally, a list of reporting items for protocols and trial reports was generated.

Conclusions

Specification of the target difference for the primary outcome is a key component of a randomized controlled trial sample size calculation. There is a need for better justification of the target difference and reporting of its specification.
Literature
1.
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
2.
go back to reference Julious S. Sample Sizes for Clinical Trials. Boca Raton, FL: Chapman and Hall/CRC Press; 2010. Julious S. Sample Sizes for Clinical Trials. Boca Raton, FL: Chapman and Hall/CRC Press; 2010.
3.
go back to reference McDonald A, Knight RC, Campbell MK, Entwistle VA, Grant AM, Cook JA, et al. What influences recruitment to randomised controlled trials? A review of trials funded by two UK funding agencies. Trials. 2006;7:7.CrossRef McDonald A, Knight RC, Campbell MK, Entwistle VA, Grant AM, Cook JA, et al. What influences recruitment to randomised controlled trials? A review of trials funded by two UK funding agencies. Trials. 2006;7:7.CrossRef
4.
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.CrossRef 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.CrossRef
5.
go back to reference Hislop J, Adewuyi T, 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 T, 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
6.
go back to reference Hellum C, Johnsen LG, Storheim K, Nygaard OP, Brox JI, Rossvoll I, et al. Surgery with disc prosthesis versus rehabilitation in patients with low back pain and degenerative disc: two year follow-up of randomised study. BMJ. 2011;342:d2786.CrossRef Hellum C, Johnsen LG, Storheim K, Nygaard OP, Brox JI, Rossvoll I, et al. Surgery with disc prosthesis versus rehabilitation in patients with low back pain and degenerative disc: two year follow-up of randomised study. BMJ. 2011;342:d2786.CrossRef
7.
go back to reference Lois N, Burr J, Norrie J, Vale L, Cook J, McDonald A, et al. Internal limiting membrane peeling versus no peeling for idiopathic full-thickness macular hole: a pragmatic randomized controlled trial. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2011;52:1586–92.CrossRef Lois N, Burr J, Norrie J, Vale L, Cook J, McDonald A, et al. Internal limiting membrane peeling versus no peeling for idiopathic full-thickness macular hole: a pragmatic randomized controlled trial. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2011;52:1586–92.CrossRef
8.
go back to reference Bacchetti P. Current sample size conventions: flaws, harms, and alternatives. BMC Med. 2010;8:17.CrossRef Bacchetti P. Current sample size conventions: flaws, harms, and alternatives. BMC Med. 2010;8:17.CrossRef
9.
go back to reference Clark T, Berger U, Mansmann U. Sample size determinations in original research protocols for randomised clinical trials submitted to UK research ethics committees: review. BMJ. 2013;346:f1135.CrossRef Clark T, Berger U, Mansmann U. Sample size determinations in original research protocols for randomised clinical trials submitted to UK research ethics committees: review. BMJ. 2013;346:f1135.CrossRef
10.
go back to reference Friedman LM, Furberg CD, DeMets DL. Fundamentals of Clinical Trials. New York: Springer; 2010.CrossRef Friedman LM, Furberg CD, DeMets DL. Fundamentals of Clinical Trials. New York: Springer; 2010.CrossRef
11.
go back to reference Matthews JN. Introduction to Randomized Controlled Clinical Trials. London: Taylor & Francis; 2006.CrossRef Matthews JN. Introduction to Randomized Controlled Clinical Trials. London: Taylor & Francis; 2006.CrossRef
12.
go back to reference Peace KE, Chen DG. Clinical Trial Methodology. London: Chapman & Hall; 2010.CrossRef Peace KE, Chen DG. Clinical Trial Methodology. London: Chapman & Hall; 2010.CrossRef
13.
go back to reference Pocock SJ. Clinical Trials: A Practical Approach. Chichester: Wiley & Co; 1983. Pocock SJ. Clinical Trials: A Practical Approach. Chichester: Wiley & Co; 1983.
14.
go back to reference Fayers PM, Cuschieri A, Fielding J, Craven J, Uscinska B, Freedman L. Sample size calculation for clinical trials: the impact of clinician beliefs. Br J Cancer. 2000;82:213–9.CrossRef Fayers PM, Cuschieri A, Fielding J, Craven J, Uscinska B, Freedman L. Sample size calculation for clinical trials: the impact of clinician beliefs. Br J Cancer. 2000;82:213–9.CrossRef
15.
go back to reference Copay AG, Subach BR, Glassman SD, Polly J, Schuler TC. Understanding the minimum clinically important difference: a review of concepts and methods. Spine J. 2007;7:541–6.CrossRef Copay AG, Subach BR, Glassman SD, Polly J, Schuler TC. Understanding the minimum clinically important difference: a review of concepts and methods. Spine J. 2007;7:541–6.CrossRef
16.
go back to reference Wells G, Beaton D, Shea B, Boers M, Simon L, Strand V, et al. Minimal clinically important differences: Review of methods. J Rheumatol. 2001;28:406–12.PubMed Wells G, Beaton D, Shea B, Boers M, Simon L, Strand V, et al. Minimal clinically important differences: Review of methods. J Rheumatol. 2001;28:406–12.PubMed
17.
go back to reference Beaton DE, Boers M, Wells GA. Many faces of the minimal clinically important difference (MICD): A literature review and directions for future research. Curr Opin Rheumatol. 2002;14:109–14.CrossRef Beaton DE, Boers M, Wells GA. Many faces of the minimal clinically important difference (MICD): A literature review and directions for future research. Curr Opin Rheumatol. 2002;14:109–14.CrossRef
18.
go back to reference Hays RD, Woolley JM. The concept of clinically meaningful difference in health-related quality-of-life research. How meaningful is it? Pharmacoeconomics. 2000;18:419–23.CrossRef Hays RD, Woolley JM. The concept of clinically meaningful difference in health-related quality-of-life research. How meaningful is it? Pharmacoeconomics. 2000;18:419–23.CrossRef
19.
go back to reference Barrett B, Brown D, Mundt M, Brown R. Sufficiently important difference: expanding the framework of clinical significance. Med Decis Making. 2005;25:250–61.CrossRef Barrett B, Brown D, Mundt M, Brown R. Sufficiently important difference: expanding the framework of clinical significance. Med Decis Making. 2005;25:250–61.CrossRef
20.
go back to reference Willan AR, Eckermann S. Optimal clinical trial design using value of information methods with imperfect implementation. Health Econ. 2010;19:549–61.PubMed Willan AR, Eckermann S. Optimal clinical trial design using value of information methods with imperfect implementation. Health Econ. 2010;19:549–61.PubMed
21.
go back to reference Kikuchi T, Pezeshk H, Gittins J. A Bayesian cost-benefit approach to the determination of sample size in clinical trials. Stat Med. 2008;27:68–82.CrossRef Kikuchi T, Pezeshk H, Gittins J. A Bayesian cost-benefit approach to the determination of sample size in clinical trials. Stat Med. 2008;27:68–82.CrossRef
22.
go back to reference Blanton H, Jaccard J. Arbitrary metrics in psychology. Am Psychol. 2006;61:27–41.CrossRef Blanton H, Jaccard J. Arbitrary metrics in psychology. Am Psychol. 2006;61:27–41.CrossRef
23.
go back to reference Carragee EJ. The rise and fall of the “minimum clinically important difference”. Spine J. 2010;10:283–4.CrossRef Carragee EJ. The rise and fall of the “minimum clinically important difference”. Spine J. 2010;10:283–4.CrossRef
24.
go back to reference Van TM, Malmivaara A, Hayden J, Koes B. Statistical significance versus clinical importance: trials on exercise therapy for chronic low back pain as example. Spine. 2007;32:1785–90.CrossRef Van TM, Malmivaara A, Hayden J, Koes B. Statistical significance versus clinical importance: trials on exercise therapy for chronic low back pain as example. Spine. 2007;32:1785–90.CrossRef
25.
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
26.
go back to reference Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D, CONSORT Group. CONSORT 2010 statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMJ. 2010;340:c332.CrossRef Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D, CONSORT Group. CONSORT 2010 statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMJ. 2010;340:c332.CrossRef
27.
go back to reference Chan AW, Tetzlaff JM, Altman DG, Laupacis A, Gotzsche PC, Krleža-Jerić K, et al. SPIRIT 2013 statement: defining standard protocol items for clinical trials. Ann Intern Med. 2013;158:200–7.CrossRef Chan AW, Tetzlaff JM, Altman DG, Laupacis A, Gotzsche PC, Krleža-Jerić K, et al. SPIRIT 2013 statement: defining standard protocol items for clinical trials. Ann Intern Med. 2013;158:200–7.CrossRef
28.
go back to reference Glazener C, Boachie C, Buckley B, Cochran C, Dorey G, Grant A, 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. Lancet. 2011;378:328–37.CrossRef Glazener C, Boachie C, Buckley B, Cochran C, Dorey G, Grant A, 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. Lancet. 2011;378:328–37.CrossRef
29.
go back to reference Hunter KF, Moore KN, Glazener CM. Conservative management for postprostatectomy urinary incontinence. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007;2:CD001843. Hunter KF, Moore KN, Glazener CM. Conservative management for postprostatectomy urinary incontinence. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007;2:CD001843.
30.
go back to reference Brooks Jr HL. Macular hole surgery with and without internal limiting membrane peeling. Ophthalmology. 2000;107:1939–48.CrossRef Brooks Jr HL. Macular hole surgery with and without internal limiting membrane peeling. Ophthalmology. 2000;107:1939–48.CrossRef
31.
go back to reference Paques M, Chastang C, Mathis A, Sahel J, Massin P, Dosquet C, 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. Ophthalmology. 1999;106:932–8.CrossRef Paques M, Chastang C, Mathis A, Sahel J, Massin P, Dosquet C, 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. Ophthalmology. 1999;106:932–8.CrossRef
32.
go back to reference Taggart DP, Lees B, Gray A, Altman DG, Flather M, Channon K, 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. Trials. 2006;7:7.CrossRef Taggart DP, Lees B, Gray A, Altman DG, Flather M, Channon K, 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. Trials. 2006;7:7.CrossRef
33.
go back to reference Taggart DP, D’Amico R, Altman DG. Effect of arterial revascularisation on survival: a systematic review of studies comparing bilateral and single internal mammary arteries. Lancet. 2001;358:870–5.CrossRef Taggart DP, D’Amico R, Altman DG. Effect of arterial revascularisation on survival: a systematic review of studies comparing bilateral and single internal mammary arteries. Lancet. 2001;358:870–5.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Specifying the target difference in the primary outcome for a randomised controlled trial: guidance for researchers
Authors
Jonathan A Cook
Jenni Hislop
Douglas G Altman
Peter Fayers
Andrew H Briggs
Craig R Ramsay
John D Norrie
Ian M Harvey
Brian Buckley
Dean Fergusson
Ian Ford
Luke D Vale
for the DELTA group
Publication date
01-12-2015
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Trials / Issue 1/2015
Electronic ISSN: 1745-6215
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-014-0526-8

Other articles of this Issue 1/2015

Trials 1/2015 Go to the issue