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

Trials

Volumn 16, Issue 1, 2015, Pages

  Cook, Jonathan A ^a,b   Hislop, Jenni ^c   Altman, Douglas G ^a   Fayers, Peter ^d,e   Briggs, Andrew H ^f   Ramsay, Craig R ^b   Norrie, John D ^d   Harvey, Ian M ^g   Buckley, Brian ^h   Fergusson, Dean ⁱ   Ford, Ian ^f   Vale, Luke D ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ABERDEEN   (United Kingdom)

^c NEWCASTLE UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^d UNIVERSITY OF ABERDEEN   (United Kingdom)

^e NORWEGIAN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY   (Norway)

^f UNIVERSITY OF GLASGOW   (United Kingdom)

^g UNIVERSITY OF EAST ANGLIA   (United Kingdom)

^h NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF IRELAND   (Ireland)

ⁱ OTTAWA HOSPITAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (Canada)

Author keywords

Clinically important difference; Guidance; Randomised controlled trial; Sample size; Target difference

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CALCULATION; CLINICAL PROTOCOL; HEALTH CARE PLANNING; HEALTH SURVEY; HUMAN; MEDICAL LITERATURE; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PUBLISHING; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); SAMPLE SIZE; SCIENTIST; STUDY DESIGN; BIOASSAY; PROCEDURES; STANDARDS; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; STATISTICS AND NUMERICAL DATA; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

DATA INTERPRETATION, STATISTICAL; ENDPOINT DETERMINATION; HUMANS; PRACTICE GUIDELINES AS TOPIC; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS AS TOPIC; SAMPLE SIZE; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 84939147784     PISSN: None     EISSN: 17456215     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/s13063-014-0526-8     Document Type: Article

References (33)

1. Charles P, Giraudeau B, Dechartres A, Baron G, Ravaud P. Reporting of sample size calculation in randomised controlled trials: review. BMJ. 2009;338:b1732.
2. Julious S. Sample Sizes for Clinical Trials. Boca Raton, FL: Chapman and Hall/CRC Press; 2010.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. Bacchetti P. Current sample size conventions: flaws, harms, and alternatives. BMC Med. 2010;8:17.
9. 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.
10. Friedman LM, Furberg CD, DeMets DL. Fundamentals of Clinical Trials. New York: Springer; 2010.
11. Matthews JN. Introduction to Randomized Controlled Clinical Trials. London: Taylor & Francis; 2006.
12. Peace KE, Chen DG. Clinical Trial Methodology. London: Chapman & Hall; 2010.
13. Pocock SJ. Clinical Trials: A Practical Approach. Chichester: Wiley & Co; 1983.
14. 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.
15. 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.
16. 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.
17. 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.
18. 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.
19. Barrett B, Brown D, Mundt M, Brown R. Sufficiently important difference: expanding the framework of clinical significance. Med Decis Making. 2005;25:250-61.
20. Willan AR, Eckermann S. Optimal clinical trial design using value of information methods with imperfect implementation. Health Econ. 2010;19:549-61.
21. 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.
22. Blanton H, Jaccard J. Arbitrary metrics in psychology. Am Psychol. 2006;61:27-41.
23. Carragee EJ. The rise and fall of the "minimum clinically important difference". Spine J. 2010;10:283-4.
24. 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.
25. Altman DG, Schulz KF, Moher D, Egger M, DavidoffF, Elbourne D, et al. The revised CONSORT statement for reporting randomized trials: explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med. 2001;134:663-94.
26. Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D, CONSORT Group. CONSORT 2010 statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMJ. 2010;340:c332.
27. Chan AW, TetzlaffJM, 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.
28. 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.
29. Hunter KF, Moore KN, Glazener CM. Conservative management for postprostatectomy urinary incontinence. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007;2:CD001843.
30. Brooks Jr HL. Macular hole surgery with and without internal limiting membrane peeling. Ophthalmology. 2000;107:1939-48.
31. 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.
32. 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.
33. 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.