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

Open Access 01-12-2018 | Methodology

DELTA2 guidance on choosing the target difference and undertaking and reporting the sample size calculation for a randomised controlled trial

Authors: Jonathan A. Cook, Steven A. Julious, William Sones, Lisa V. Hampson, Catherine Hewitt, Jesse A. Berlin, Deborah Ashby, Richard Emsley, Dean A. Fergusson, Stephen J. Walters, Edward C. F. Wilson, Graeme Maclennan, Nigel Stallard, Joanne C. Rothwell, Martin Bland, Louise Brown, Craig R. Ramsay, Andrew Cook, David Armstrong, Doug Altman, Luke D. Vale

Published in: Trials | Issue 1/2018

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

A key step in the design of a RCT is the estimation of the number of participants needed in the study. The most common approach is to specify a target difference between the treatments for the primary outcome and then calculate the required sample size. The sample size is chosen to ensure that the trial will have a high probability (adequate statistical power) of detecting a target difference between the treatments should one exist.
The sample size has many implications for the conduct and interpretation of the study. Despite the critical role that the target difference has in the design of a RCT, the way in which it is determined has received little attention. In this article, we summarise the key considerations and messages from new guidance for researchers and funders on specifying the target difference, and undertaking and reporting a RCT sample size calculation. This article on choosing the target difference for a randomised controlled trial (RCT) and undertaking and reporting the sample size calculation has been dual published in the BMJ and BMC Trials journals

Methods

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

Results and Discussion

The key messages from the DELTA2 guidance on determining the target difference and sample size calculation for a randomised caontrolled trial are presented. Recommendations for the subsequent reporting of the sample size calculation are also provided.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Altman D, et al. The revised CONSORT statement for reporting randomized trials: explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med. 2001;134:663–94.CrossRef Altman 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 Cook J, 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 J, 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
3.
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
4.
go back to reference Cook JA, 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(3):300–8.CrossRef Cook JA, 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(3):300–8.CrossRef
6.
go back to reference Sones W. et al., Choosing the target difference (“effect size”) for a randomised controlled trial – the development of the DELTA2 guidance Trials. 2018;19:542. Sones W. et al., Choosing the target difference (“effect size”) for a randomised controlled trial – the development of the DELTA2 guidance Trials. 2018;19:542.
7.
go back to reference Hollis S, Campbell F. What is meant by intention to treat analysis? Survey of published randomised controlled trials. BMJ. 1999;319(7211):670–4.CrossRef Hollis S, Campbell F. What is meant by intention to treat analysis? Survey of published randomised controlled trials. BMJ. 1999;319(7211):670–4.CrossRef
8.
go back to reference Phillips A, et al. Estimands: discussion points from the PSI estimands and sensitivity expert group. Pharm Stat. 2017;16(1):6–11.CrossRef Phillips A, et al. Estimands: discussion points from the PSI estimands and sensitivity expert group. Pharm Stat. 2017;16(1):6–11.CrossRef
9.
go back to reference Rosenkranz G. Estimands-new statistical principle or the emperor's new clothes? Pharm Stat. 2017;16(1):4–5.CrossRef Rosenkranz G. Estimands-new statistical principle or the emperor's new clothes? Pharm Stat. 2017;16(1):4–5.CrossRef
11.
go back to reference Akacha M, Bretz F, Ruberg S. Estimands in clinical trials - broadening the perspective. Stat Med. 2017;36(1):5–19.CrossRef Akacha M, Bretz F, Ruberg S. Estimands in clinical trials - broadening the perspective. Stat Med. 2017;36(1):5–19.CrossRef
13.
go back to reference Chan KB, et al. How well is the clinical importance of study results reported? An assessment of randomized controlled trials. CMAJ. 2001;165(9):1197–202.PubMedPubMedCentral Chan KB, et al. How well is the clinical importance of study results reported? An assessment of randomized controlled trials. CMAJ. 2001;165(9):1197–202.PubMedPubMedCentral
14.
go back to reference Schulz KF, Grimes DA. Sample size calculations in randomised trials: mandatory and mystical. Lancet. 2005;365(9467):1348–53.CrossRef Schulz KF, Grimes DA. Sample size calculations in randomised trials: mandatory and mystical. Lancet. 2005;365(9467):1348–53.CrossRef
15.
go back to reference Senn S. Controversies concerning randomization and additivity in clinical trials. Stat Med. 2004;23(24):3729–53.CrossRef Senn S. Controversies concerning randomization and additivity in clinical trials. Stat Med. 2004;23(24):3729–53.CrossRef
16.
go back to reference Spiegelhalter DJ, Abrams KR, Myles JP. Bayesian Approaches to Clinical Trials and Health-Care Evaluation. 1st ed. Chicester: John Wiley & Sons; 2004. Spiegelhalter DJ, Abrams KR, Myles JP. Bayesian Approaches to Clinical Trials and Health-Care Evaluation. 1st ed. Chicester: John Wiley & Sons; 2004.
17.
go back to reference Goodman SN, Berlin JA. The use of predicted confidence intervals when planning experiments and the misuse of power when interpreting results. Ann Intern Med. 1994;121(3):200–6.CrossRef Goodman SN, Berlin JA. The use of predicted confidence intervals when planning experiments and the misuse of power when interpreting results. Ann Intern Med. 1994;121(3):200–6.CrossRef
18.
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
19.
go back to reference Stallard N, et al. Determination of the optimal sample size for a clinical trial accounting for the population size. Biom J. 2016;59(4):609–25.CrossRef Stallard N, et al. Determination of the optimal sample size for a clinical trial accounting for the population size. Biom J. 2016;59(4):609–25.CrossRef
20.
go back to reference Pezeshk H. Bayesian techniques for sample size determination in clinical trials: a short review. Stat Methods Med Res. 2003;12(6):489–504.CrossRef Pezeshk H. Bayesian techniques for sample size determination in clinical trials: a short review. Stat Methods Med Res. 2003;12(6):489–504.CrossRef
21.
go back to reference Claxton K. The irrelevance of inference: a decision-making approach to the stochastic evaluation of health care technologies. J Health Econ. 1999;18(3):341–64.CrossRef Claxton K. The irrelevance of inference: a decision-making approach to the stochastic evaluation of health care technologies. J Health Econ. 1999;18(3):341–64.CrossRef
22.
go back to reference Charles P, et al. Reporting of sample size calculation in randomised controlled trials: review. BMJ. 2009;338:b1732.CrossRef Charles P, et al. Reporting of sample size calculation in randomised controlled trials: review. BMJ. 2009;338:b1732.CrossRef
23.
go back to reference Julious S. Sample sizes for clinical trials. Boca Raton: Chapman and Hall/CRC Press; 2010.CrossRef Julious S. Sample sizes for clinical trials. Boca Raton: Chapman and Hall/CRC Press; 2010.CrossRef
24.
go back to reference Hellum C, 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, 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
25.
go back to reference White PD, et al. Comparison of adaptive pacing therapy, cognitive behaviour therapy, graded exercise therapy, and specialist medical care for chronic fatigue syndrome (PACE): a randomised trial. Lancet. 2011;377(9768):823–36.CrossRef White PD, et al. Comparison of adaptive pacing therapy, cognitive behaviour therapy, graded exercise therapy, and specialist medical care for chronic fatigue syndrome (PACE): a randomised trial. Lancet. 2011;377(9768):823–36.CrossRef
26.
go back to reference Chinn S. A simple method for converting an odds ratio to effect size for use in meta-analysis. Stat Med. 2000;19:3127–31.CrossRef Chinn S. A simple method for converting an odds ratio to effect size for use in meta-analysis. Stat Med. 2000;19:3127–31.CrossRef
27.
go back to reference Copay A, et al. Understanding the minimum clinically important difference: a review of concepts and methods. Spine J. 2007;7:541–6.CrossRef Copay A, et al. Understanding the minimum clinically important difference: a review of concepts and methods. Spine J. 2007;7:541–6.CrossRef
28.
go back to reference Wells G, et al. Minimal clinically important differences: Review of methods. J Rheumatol. 2001;28:406–12.PubMed Wells G, et al. Minimal clinically important differences: Review of methods. J Rheumatol. 2001;28:406–12.PubMed
29.
go back to reference Beaton D, Boers M, Wells G. 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 D, Boers M, Wells G. 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
30.
go back to reference Fayers P, et al. Sample size calculation for clinical trials: the impact of clinician beliefs. Br J Cancer. 2000;82:213–9.CrossRef Fayers P, et al. Sample size calculation for clinical trials: the impact of clinician beliefs. Br J Cancer. 2000;82:213–9.CrossRef
31.
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
Metadata
Title
DELTA2 guidance on choosing the target difference and undertaking and reporting the sample size calculation for a randomised controlled trial
Authors
Jonathan A. Cook
Steven A. Julious
William Sones
Lisa V. Hampson
Catherine Hewitt
Jesse A. Berlin
Deborah Ashby
Richard Emsley
Dean A. Fergusson
Stephen J. Walters
Edward C. F. Wilson
Graeme Maclennan
Nigel Stallard
Joanne C. Rothwell
Martin Bland
Louise Brown
Craig R. Ramsay
Andrew Cook
David Armstrong
Doug Altman
Luke D. Vale
Publication date
01-12-2018
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Trials / Issue 1/2018
Electronic ISSN: 1745-6215
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-018-2884-0

Other articles of this Issue 1/2018

Trials 1/2018 Go to the issue