Sample size of randomized double-blind trials 1976-1991

Danish Medical Bulletin

Volumn 43, Issue 1, 1996, Pages 96-98

  Mulward, Stephan ^a   Gøizsche, Peter C ^a,b  

^a Nordic Cochrane Center

^b Rigshospitalet   (Denmark)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; DOUBLE BLIND PROCEDURE; HUMAN; METHODOLOGY; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; SAMPLE SIZE; STANDARD; STATISTICS;

DOUBLE-BLIND METHOD; HUMANS; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS; SAMPLE SIZE; STATISTICS;

EID: 0030072879     PISSN: 09078916     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Review

References (18)

1. Freiman JA, Chalmers TC, Smith H, Kuebler RR. The importance of beta, the type II error and sample size in the design and interpretation of the randomized control trial. N Engl J Med 1978; 299: 690-4.
2. Meinert CL, Tonascia S, Higgins K Content of reports on clinical trials: a critical review. Controlled Clin Trials 1984; 5: 328-47.
3. Bland JM, Jones DR, Bennett S, Cook DG, Haines AP, Macfarlane AJ. Is the clinical trial evidence about new drugs statistically adequate? Br J Clin Pharmacol 1985; 19: 155-60.
4. Gøtzsche PC. Methodology and overt and hidden bias in reports of 196 double-blind trials of nonsteroidal, anti-inflammatory drugs in rheumatoid arthritis. Controlled Clin Trials 1989; 10: 31-56 (erratum: 356).
5. Gøtzsche PC, Lange B. Comparison of search strategies for recalling double-blind trials from MEDLINE. Dan Med Bull 1991; 38: 476-8.
6. Garfield E. SCI journal citation reports. Philadelphia: Institute for Scientific Information, 1986.
7. Rochon PA, Gurwitz JH, Cheung CM, Hayes JA, Chalmers TC. Evaluating the quality of articles published in journal supplements compared with the quality of those published in the parent journal. JAMA 1994; 272: 108-13.
8. Sackett DL, Haynes RB, Guyatt GH, Tugwell P. Clinical epidemiology: a basic science for clinical medicine. 2nd ed. Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1991.
9. Gøtzsche PC. Sensitivity of effect variables in rheumatoid arthritis: a meta-analysis of 130 placebo controlled NSAID trials. J Clin Epidemiol 1990; 43: 1313-8.
10. Gøtzsche PC. Bias in double-blind trials [thesis]. Dan Med Bull 1990, 37: 329-36
11. Pocock SJ, Hughes MD, Lee RJ. Statistical problems in the reporting of clinical trials. A survey of three medical journals. N Engl J Med 1987; 317: 426-32.
12. Juhl E, Christensen E, Tygstrup N. The epidemiology of the gastrointestinal randomized clinical trial. N Engl J Med 1977; 296: 20-2.
13. Mosteller F, Gilbert JP, McPeek B. Reporting standards and research strategies for controlled trials. Agenda for the Editor. Controlled Clin Trials 1980; 1. 37-58.
14. Moher D, Dulberg CS, Wells G. Statistical power, sample size, and their reporting in randomized controlled trials. JAMA 1994; 272: 122-4.
15. Berlin JA, Begg CB, Louis TA. An assessment of publication bias using a sample of published clinical trials. J Am Stat Assoc 1989; 84: 381-92.
16. Dickersin K. The existence of publication bias and risk factors for its occurrence. JAMA 1990; 263: 1385-9.
17. Seglen PO. The skewness of science. J Am Soc Inform Sci 1992; 43: 628-38.
18. Peto R, Pike MC, Armitage P, Breslow NE, Cox DR, Howard SV et al. Design and analysis of randomized clinical trials requiring prolonged observation of each patient. I. Introduction and design. Br J Cancer 1976; 34: 585-612