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

Open Access 01-12-2017 | Study protocol

Current practice in methodology and reporting of the sample size calculation in randomised trials of hip and knee osteoarthritis: a protocol for a systematic review

Authors: Bethan Copsey, Susan Dutton, Ray Fitzpatrick, Sarah E. Lamb, Jonathan A. Cook

Published in: Trials | Issue 1/2017

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

A key aspect of the design of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is determining the sample size. It is important that the trial sample size is appropriately calculated. The required sample size will differ by clinical area, for instance, due to the prevalence of the condition and the choice of primary outcome. Additionally, it will depend upon the choice of target difference assumed in the calculation. Focussing upon the hip and knee osteoarthritis population, this study aims to systematically review how the trial size was determined for trials of osteoarthritis, on what basis, and how well these aspects are reported.

Methods

Several electronic databases (Medline, Cochrane library, CINAHL, EMBASE, PsycINFO, PEDro and AMED) will be searched to identify articles on RCTs of hip and knee osteoarthritis published in 2016. Articles will be screened for eligibility and data extracted independently by two reviewers. Data will be extracted on study characteristics (design, population, intervention and control treatments), primary outcome, chosen sample size and justification, parameters used to calculate the sample size (including treatment effect in control arm, level of variability in primary outcome, loss to follow-up rates). Data will be summarised across the studies using appropriate summary statistics (e.g. n and %, median and interquartile range). The proportion of studies which report each key component of the sample size calculation will be presented. The reproducibility of the sample size calculation will be tested.

Discussion

The findings of this systematic review will summarise the current practice for sample size calculation in trials of hip and knee osteoarthritis. It will also provide evidence on the completeness of the reporting of the sample size calculation, reproducibility of the chosen sample size and the basis for the values used in the calculation.

Trial registration

As this review was not eligible to be registered on PROSPERO, the summary information was uploaded to Figshare to make it publicly accessible in order to avoid unnecessary duplication amongst other benefits (https://​doi.​org/​10.​6084/​m9.​figshare.​5009027.​v1); Registered January 17, 2017.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
go back to reference Cook JA, Hislop J, Adewuyi TE, Harrild K, Altman DG, Ramsay CR, Fraser C, Buckley B, Fayers P, Harvey I 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. Cook JA, Hislop J, Adewuyi TE, Harrild K, Altman DG, Ramsay CR, Fraser C, Buckley B, Fayers P, Harvey I 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.
2.
go back to reference Hulley SB, Cummings SR, Browner WS, Grady DG, Newman TB. Designing clinical research. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2013. Hulley SB, Cummings SR, Browner WS, Grady DG, Newman TB. Designing clinical research. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2013.
3.
go back to reference Cook JA, Hislop J, Altman DG, Fayers P, Briggs AH, Ramsay CR, Norrie JD, Harvey IM, Buckley B, Fergusson D. Specifying the target difference in the primary outcome for a randomised controlled trial: guidance for researchers. Trials. 2015;16(1):12.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Cook JA, Hislop J, Altman DG, Fayers P, Briggs AH, Ramsay CR, Norrie JD, Harvey IM, Buckley B, Fergusson D. Specifying the target difference in the primary outcome for a randomised controlled trial: guidance for researchers. Trials. 2015;16(1):12.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
4.
go back to reference Lenth RV. Some practical guidelines for effective sample size determination. Am Statistician. 2001;55(3):187–93.CrossRef Lenth RV. Some practical guidelines for effective sample size determination. Am Statistician. 2001;55(3):187–93.CrossRef
6.
go back to reference Halpern SD, Karlawish JH, Berlin JA. The continuing unethical conduct of underpowered clinical trials. JAMA. 2002;288(3):358–62.CrossRefPubMed Halpern SD, Karlawish JH, Berlin JA. The continuing unethical conduct of underpowered clinical trials. JAMA. 2002;288(3):358–62.CrossRefPubMed
7.
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.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Charles P, Giraudeau B, Dechartres A, Baron G, Ravaud P. Reporting of sample size calculation in randomised controlled trials: review. BMJ. 2009;338:b1732.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
8.
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.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral 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.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
9.
go back to reference Tavernier E, Giraudeau B. Sample size calculation: inaccurate a priori assumptions for nuisance parameters can greatly affect the power of a randomized controlled trial. PLoS One. 2015;10(7):e0132578.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Tavernier E, Giraudeau B. Sample size calculation: inaccurate a priori assumptions for nuisance parameters can greatly affect the power of a randomized controlled trial. PLoS One. 2015;10(7):e0132578.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
10.
go back to reference Vickers AJ. Underpowering in randomized trials reporting a sample size calculation. J Clin Epidemiol. 2003;56(8):717–20.CrossRefPubMed Vickers AJ. Underpowering in randomized trials reporting a sample size calculation. J Clin Epidemiol. 2003;56(8):717–20.CrossRefPubMed
11.
go back to reference Losina E, Ranstam J, Collins J, Schnitzer T, Katz J. OARSI clinical trials recommendations: key analytic considerations in design, analysis, and reporting of randomized controlled trials in osteoarthritis. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2015;23(5):677–85.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Losina E, Ranstam J, Collins J, Schnitzer T, Katz J. OARSI clinical trials recommendations: key analytic considerations in design, analysis, and reporting of randomized controlled trials in osteoarthritis. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2015;23(5):677–85.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
12.
go back to reference Keen HI, Pile K, Hill CL. The prevalence of underpowered randomized clinical trials in rheumatology. J Rheumatol. 2005;32(11):2083–8.PubMed Keen HI, Pile K, Hill CL. The prevalence of underpowered randomized clinical trials in rheumatology. J Rheumatol. 2005;32(11):2083–8.PubMed
13.
14.
go back to reference Hopewell S, Collins GS, Boutron I, Yu L-M, Cook J, Shanyinde M, Wharton R, Shamseer L, Altman DG. Impact of peer review on reports of randomised trials published in open peer review journals: retrospective before and after study. BMJ. 2014;349:g4145.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Hopewell S, Collins GS, Boutron I, Yu L-M, Cook J, Shanyinde M, Wharton R, Shamseer L, Altman DG. Impact of peer review on reports of randomised trials published in open peer review journals: retrospective before and after study. BMJ. 2014;349:g4145.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
15.
go back to reference Arnup SJ, Forbes AB, Kahan BC, Morgan KE, McKenzie JE. The quality of reporting in cluster randomised crossover trials: proposal for reporting items and an assessment of reporting quality. Trials. 2016;17(1):575.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Arnup SJ, Forbes AB, Kahan BC, Morgan KE, McKenzie JE. The quality of reporting in cluster randomised crossover trials: proposal for reporting items and an assessment of reporting quality. Trials. 2016;17(1):575.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
16.
go back to reference Lewin S, Glenton C, Oxman AD. Use of qualitative methods alongside randomised controlled trials of complex healthcare interventions: methodological study. BMJ. 2009;339:b3496.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Lewin S, Glenton C, Oxman AD. Use of qualitative methods alongside randomised controlled trials of complex healthcare interventions: methodological study. BMJ. 2009;339:b3496.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
17.
go back to reference Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioural sciences. Hillside: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1988. Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioural sciences. Hillside: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1988.
18.
go back to reference StataCorp L. Stata Statistical Software: Release 14. College Station: StataCorp LP; 2015. StataCorp L. Stata Statistical Software: Release 14. College Station: StataCorp LP; 2015.
19.
go back to reference Williamson DF, Parker RA, Kendrick JS. The box plot: a simple visual method to interpret data. Ann Intern Med. 1989;110(11):916–21.CrossRefPubMed Williamson DF, Parker RA, Kendrick JS. The box plot: a simple visual method to interpret data. Ann Intern Med. 1989;110(11):916–21.CrossRefPubMed
20.
go back to reference Balk EM, Bonis PA, Moskowitz H, Schmid CH, Ioannidis JP, Wang C, Lau J. Correlation of quality measures with estimates of treatment effect in meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials. JAMA. 2002;287(22):2973–82.CrossRefPubMed Balk EM, Bonis PA, Moskowitz H, Schmid CH, Ioannidis JP, Wang C, Lau J. Correlation of quality measures with estimates of treatment effect in meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials. JAMA. 2002;287(22):2973–82.CrossRefPubMed
21.
go back to reference Cook JA, McCulloch P, Blazeby JM, Beard DJ, Marinac-Dabic D, Sedrakyan A. IDEAL framework for surgical innovation 3: randomised controlled trials in the assessment stage and evaluations in the long term study stage. BMJ. 2013;346:f2820.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Cook JA, McCulloch P, Blazeby JM, Beard DJ, Marinac-Dabic D, Sedrakyan A. IDEAL framework for surgical innovation 3: randomised controlled trials in the assessment stage and evaluations in the long term study stage. BMJ. 2013;346:f2820.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
22.
go back to reference Wenner DM, Brody BA, Jarman AF, Kolman JM, Wray NP, Ashton CM. Do surgical trials meet the scientific standards for clinical trials? J Am Coll Surg. 2012;215(5):722.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Wenner DM, Brody BA, Jarman AF, Kolman JM, Wray NP, Ashton CM. Do surgical trials meet the scientific standards for clinical trials? J Am Coll Surg. 2012;215(5):722.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
23.
go back to reference Bafeta A, Dechartres A, Trinquart L, Yavchitz A, Boutron I, Ravaud P. Impact of single centre status on estimates of intervention effects in trials with continuous outcomes: meta-epidemiological study. BMJ. 2012;344:e813.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Bafeta A, Dechartres A, Trinquart L, Yavchitz A, Boutron I, Ravaud P. Impact of single centre status on estimates of intervention effects in trials with continuous outcomes: meta-epidemiological study. BMJ. 2012;344:e813.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
24.
go back to reference Pengel LH, Barcena L, Morris PJ. The quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials in solid organ transplantation. Transpl Int. 2009;22(4):377–84.CrossRefPubMed Pengel LH, Barcena L, Morris PJ. The quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials in solid organ transplantation. Transpl Int. 2009;22(4):377–84.CrossRefPubMed
25.
go back to reference Djulbegovic B, Lacevic M, Cantor A, Fields KK, Bennett CL, Adams JR, Kuderer NM, Lyman GH. The uncertainty principle and industry-sponsored research. Lancet. 2000;356(9230):635–8.CrossRefPubMed Djulbegovic B, Lacevic M, Cantor A, Fields KK, Bennett CL, Adams JR, Kuderer NM, Lyman GH. The uncertainty principle and industry-sponsored research. Lancet. 2000;356(9230):635–8.CrossRefPubMed
26.
go back to reference Lundh A, Sismondo S, Lexchin J, Busuioc OA, Bero L. Industry sponsorship and research outcome. Cochrane Libr. 2012;12:MR000033. Lundh A, Sismondo S, Lexchin J, Busuioc OA, Bero L. Industry sponsorship and research outcome. Cochrane Libr. 2012;12:MR000033.
27.
go back to reference Schott G, Pachl H, Limbach U, Gundert-Remy U, Lieb K, Ludwig W-D. The financing of drug trials by pharmaceutical companies and its consequences: part 2: a qualitative, systematic review of the literature on possible influences on authorship, access to trial data, and trial registration and publication. Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2010;107(17):295.PubMedPubMedCentral Schott G, Pachl H, Limbach U, Gundert-Remy U, Lieb K, Ludwig W-D. The financing of drug trials by pharmaceutical companies and its consequences: part 2: a qualitative, systematic review of the literature on possible influences on authorship, access to trial data, and trial registration and publication. Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2010;107(17):295.PubMedPubMedCentral
28.
go back to reference Guideline IHT. Choice of control group and related issues in clinical trials E10. Choice. 2000;E10:CPMP/ICH/364/96. Guideline IHT. Choice of control group and related issues in clinical trials E10. Choice. 2000;E10:CPMP/ICH/364/96.
29.
go back to reference Mhaskar R, Djulbegovic B, Magazin A, Soares HP, Kumar A. Published methodological quality of randomized controlled trials does not reflect the actual quality assessed in protocols. J Clin Epidemiol. 2012;65(6):602–9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Mhaskar R, Djulbegovic B, Magazin A, Soares HP, Kumar A. Published methodological quality of randomized controlled trials does not reflect the actual quality assessed in protocols. J Clin Epidemiol. 2012;65(6):602–9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
30.
go back to reference Cook JA, Hislop JM, Altman DG, Briggs AH, Fayers PM, Norrie JD, Ramsay CR, Harvey IM, Vale LD. Use of methods for specifying the target difference in randomised controlled trial sample size calculations: two surveys of trialists’ practice. Clin Trials. 2014;11(3):300–8.CrossRefPubMed Cook JA, Hislop JM, Altman DG, Briggs AH, Fayers PM, Norrie JD, Ramsay CR, Harvey IM, Vale LD. Use of methods for specifying the target difference in randomised controlled trial sample size calculations: two surveys of trialists’ practice. Clin Trials. 2014;11(3):300–8.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Current practice in methodology and reporting of the sample size calculation in randomised trials of hip and knee osteoarthritis: a protocol for a systematic review
Authors
Bethan Copsey
Susan Dutton
Ray Fitzpatrick
Sarah E. Lamb
Jonathan A. Cook
Publication date
01-12-2017
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Trials / Issue 1/2017
Electronic ISSN: 1745-6215
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-017-2209-8

Other articles of this Issue 1/2017

Trials 1/2017 Go to the issue