Correction to: Choosing the target difference and undertaking and reporting the sample size calculation for a randomised controlled trial - The development of the DELTA2 guidance (Trials (2018) 19 (542) DOI: 10.1186/s13063-018-2887-x);Choosing the target difference and undertaking and reporting the sample size calculation for a randomised controlled trial - The development of the DELTA2 guidance Suzie Cro

Trials

Volumn 19, Issue 1, 2018, Pages

  Sones, William ^a   Julious, Steven A ^b   Rothwell, Joanne C ^b   Ramsay, Craig Robert ^c   Hampson, Lisa V ^d,e   Emsley, Richard ^f   Walters, Stephen J ^b   Hewitt, Catherine ^g   Bland, Martin ^g   Fergusson, Dean A ^h   Berlin, Jesse A ⁱ   Altman, Doug ^a   Vale, Luke David ^j   Cook, Jonathan Alistair ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF SHEFFIELD   (United Kingdom)

^c UNIVERSITY OF ABERDEEN   (United Kingdom)

^d LANCASTER UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^e NOVARTIS PHARMA AG   (Switzerland)

^f KING'S COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^g UNIVERSITY OF YORK   (United Kingdom)

^h OTTAWA HOSPITAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (Canada)

ⁱ JOHNSON AND JOHNSON   (United States)

^j NEWCASTLE UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

more..

Author keywords

Clinically important difference; Delphi; Effect size; Guidance; Randomised trial; Sample size; Target difference

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; ATTENTION; CALCULATION; CONSENSUS; DELPHI STUDY; EFFECT SIZE; ETHICS; FEMALE; HUMAN; MALE; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); SAMPLE SIZE; SCIENTIST; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; CONSENSUS DEVELOPMENT; NUMBERS NEEDED TO TREAT; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PROCEDURES; STANDARDS; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; STATISTICS AND NUMERICAL DATA; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

CLINICAL TRIAL PROTOCOLS AS TOPIC; CONSENSUS; DATA INTERPRETATION, STATISTICAL; DELPHI TECHNIQUE; HUMANS; NUMBERS NEEDED TO TREAT; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS AS TOPIC; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 85054775279     PISSN: None     EISSN: 17456215     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/s13063-019-3809-2     Document Type: Erratum

References (14)

1. Bland JM. The tyranny of power: is there a better way to calculate sample size? BMJ. 2009;339:b3985.
2. Cook JA, 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.
3. Julious S. Sample sizes for clinical trials. Boca Raton: Chapman and Hall/CRC Press; 2010.
4. Cook J, et al. Specifying the target difference in the primary outcome for a randomised controlled trial: guidance for researchers. Trials. 2015;16:12.
5. 2 guidance protocol. Trials. 2017;18(1):271.
6. 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.
7. 2 guidance for researchers and funder representatives. 2018 https://www.csm.ox.ac.uk/research/methodology-research/delta2/delta2-output. Accessed 20 Aug 2018.
8. Glick HA. Sample size and power for cost-effectiveness analysis (part 1). Pharmacoeconomics. 2011;29(3):189-98.
9. Glick HA. Sample size and power for cost-effectiveness analysis (part 2): the effect of maximum willingness to pay. Pharmacoeconomics. 2011;29(4):287-96.
10. Willan AR. Sample size determination for cost-effectiveness trials. Pharmacoeconomics. 2011;29(11):933-49.
11. Wilson EC. A practical guide to value of information analysis. Pharmacoeconomics. 2015;33(2):105-21.
12. Ferreira ML, et al. A critical review of methods used to determine the smallest worthwhile effect of interventions for low back pain. J Clin Epidemiol. 2012;65(3):253-61.
13. Pezold ML, et al. Defining a research agenda for patient-reported outcomes in surgery: using a Delphi survey of stakeholders. JAMA Surg. 2016;151(10):930-6.
14. Williamson PR, et al. Developing core outcome sets for clinical trials: issues to consider. Trials. 2012;13:132.