45
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

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

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Central to the design of a randomised controlled trial is the calculation of the number of participants needed. This is typically achieved by specifying a target difference and calculating the corresponding sample size, which provides reassurance that the trial will have the required statistical power (at the planned statistical significance level) to identify whether a difference of a particular magnitude exists. Beyond pure statistical or scientific concerns, it is ethically imperative that an appropriate number of participants should be recruited. Despite the critical role of the target difference for the primary outcome in the design of randomised controlled trials, its determination has received surprisingly little attention. This article provides guidance on the specification of the target difference for the primary outcome in a sample size calculation for a two parallel group randomised controlled trial with a superiority question.

          Methods

          This work was part of the DELTA (Difference ELicitation in TriAls) project. Draft guidance was developed by the project steering and advisory groups utilising the results of the systematic review and surveys. Findings were circulated and presented to members of the combined group at a face-to-face meeting, along with a proposed outline of the guidance document structure, containing recommendations and reporting items for a trial protocol and report. The guidance and was subsequently drafted and circulated for further comment before finalisation.

          Results

          Guidance on specification of a target difference in the primary outcome for a two group parallel randomised controlled trial was produced. Additionally, a list of reporting items for protocols and trial reports was generated.

          Conclusions

          Specification of the target difference for the primary outcome is a key component of a randomized controlled trial sample size calculation. There is a need for better justification of the target difference and reporting of its specification.

          Electronic supplementary material

          The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13063-014-0526-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

          Related collections

          Most cited references29

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          What influences recruitment to randomised controlled trials? A review of trials funded by two UK funding agencies

          Background A commonly reported problem with the conduct of multicentre randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is that recruitment is often slower or more difficult than expected, with many trials failing to reach their planned sample size within the timescale and funding originally envisaged. The aim of this study was to explore factors that may have been associated with good and poor recruitment in a cohort of multicentre trials funded by two public bodies: the UK Medical Research Council (MRC) and the Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Programme. Methods The cohort of trials was identified from the administrative databases held by the two funding bodies. 114 trials that recruited participants between 1994 and 2002 met the inclusion criteria. The full scientific applications and subsequent trial reports submitted by the trial teams to the funders provided the principal data sources. Associations between trial characteristics and recruitment success were tested using the Chi-squared test, or Fisher's exact test where appropriate. Results Less than a third (31%) of the trials achieved their original recruitment target and half (53%) were awarded an extension. The proportion achieving targets did not appear to improve over time. The overall start to recruitment was delayed in 47 (41%) trials and early recruitment problems were identified in 77 (63%) trials. The inter-relationship between trial features and recruitment success was complex. A variety of strategies were employed to try to increase recruitment, but their success could not be assessed. Conclusion Recruitment problems are complex and challenging. Many of the trials in the cohort experienced recruitment difficulties. Trials often required extended recruitment periods (sometimes supported by additional funds). While this is of continuing concern, success in addressing the trial question may be more important than recruitment alone.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Macular hole surgery with and without internal limiting membrane peeling.

            To compare results of surgery for idiopathic macular hole with and without internal limiting membrane (ILM) peeling in a series of consecutive patients over a 5-year period. A retrospective, nonrandomized, comparative trial with concurrent control group. Forty-four eyes with macular holes of less than or equal to 6 months duration without ILM peeling were compared to 116 eyes with ILM peeling and the same hole duration. A third group of 65 eyes with ILM peeling and duration greater than 6 months was also evaluated. All eyes underwent pars plana vitrectomy with or without ILM peeling, intravitreous gas, and positioning face down. No adjunctive therapies were used in any group. Comparing the closure and/or reopening rate, prognosis, visual acuity, and complications for macular holes with and without ILM peeling. All patients had postsurgical follow-up of 18 months or greater. Primary closure was significantly improved with ILM peeling with 116 of 116 eyes (100%) showing no reopenings versus 36 of 44 holes (82%) primarily closed, 9 of which (25%) reopened without ILM peeling (P: < 0.00001) in holes less than or equal to 6 months. The 27 eyes without ILM peeling that had successful surgery displayed a mean postoperative vision of 20/40, which is the same as the successful eyes with ILM peeling (P: = 0.6). The 52 stage II eyes with ILM peeling had a mean postoperative vision of 20/30, and 48 of the 52 eyes (92%) were 20/40 or better. Stage III eyes (greater than 400-microm holes) without ILM peeling had a poor prognosis, with 6 of the 25 eyes (24%) having initial surgery fail and an additional 4 of 25 eyes (16%) reopening. Without ILM peeling, holes less than 300 microm had only one reopen, whereas holes greater than or equal to 300 microm had 16 of the 17 (94%) primary failures and/or reopenings (P: < 0.001). All 12 holes that reopened and/or primarily failed were repaired with ILM peeling with excellent visual recovery. Macular holes with a duration greater than 6 months were treated with ILM peeling, and 63 of 65 holes (97%) were closed primarily and 65% had an increase in vision by two or more Snellen lines. ILM peeling significantly improves visual and anatomic success in all stages of recent and chronic macular holes and reopened and failed holes, while eliminating reopening for holes greater than 300 microm.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Arbitrary metrics in psychology.

              Many psychological tests have arbitrary metrics but are appropriate for testing psychological theories. Metric arbitrariness is a concern, however, when researchers wish to draw inferences about the true, absolute standing of a group or individual on the latent psychological dimension being measured. The authors illustrate this in the context of 2 case studies in which psychologists need to develop inventories with nonarbitrary metrics. One example comes from social psychology, where researchers have begun using the Implicit Association Test to provide the lay public with feedback about their "hidden biases" via popular Internet Web pages. The other example comes from clinical psychology, where researchers often wish to evaluate the real-world importance of interventions. As the authors show, both pursuits require researchers to conduct formal research that makes their metrics nonarbitrary by linking test scores to meaningful real-world events. 2006 APA, all rights reserved.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                jonathan.cook@ndorms.ox.ac.uk
                jenni.hislop@newcastle.ac.uk
                doug.altman@csm.ox.ac.uk
                p.fayers@abdn.ac.uk
                Andrew.briggs@glasgow.ac.uk
                c.r.ramsay@abdn.ac.uk
                j.norrie@abdn.ac.uk
                Ian.harvey@uea.ac.uk
                briansbuckley@gmail.com
                dafergusson@ohri.ca
                ian.ford@glasgow.ac.uk
                luke.vale@newcastle.ac.uk
                Journal
                Trials
                Trials
                Trials
                BioMed Central (London )
                1745-6215
                15 January 2015
                15 January 2015
                2015
                : 16
                : 1
                : 12
                Affiliations
                [ ]Centre for Statistics in Medicine, Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Botnar Research Centre, Nuffield Orthopaedic Centre, Windmill Road, Oxford, OX3 7LD UK
                [ ]Health Services Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, Health Sciences Building, Foresthill, Aberdeen, AB25 2ZD UK
                [ ]Institute of Health and Society, Newcastle University, The Baddiley-Clark Building, Richardson Road, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE2 4AX UK
                [ ]Population Health, University of Aberdeen, Polwarth Building, Foresterhill, Aberdeen, AB25 2ZD UK
                [ ]Department of Cancer Research and Molecular, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Mailbox 8905, Trondheim, N-7491 Norway
                [ ]Health Economics and Health Technology Assessment, University of Glasgow, 1 Lilybank Gardens, Glasgow, G12 8RZ UK
                [ ]Centre for Healthcare Randomised Trials (CHaRT), University of Aberdeen, Health Sciences Building, Aberdeen, AB25 2ZD UK
                [ ]Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of East Anglia, Elizabeth Fry Building, Norwich Research Park, Norwich, NR4 7TJ UK
                [ ]National University of Ireland, University Road, Galway, Ireland
                [ ]Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, 725 Parkdale Avenue, Ottawa, ON K1Y 4E9 Canada
                [ ]Robertson Centre for Biostatistics, University of Glasgow, Boyd Orr Building, University Avenue, Glasgow, G12 8QQ UK
                Article
                526
                10.1186/s13063-014-0526-8
                4302137
                25928502
                593eb587-f02a-40da-a4f9-70191f332789
                © Cook et al.; licensee BioMed Central. 2015

                This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

                History
                : 30 June 2014
                : 19 December 2014
                Categories
                Research
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2015

                Medicine
                target difference,clinically important difference,sample size,randomised controlled trial,guidance

                Comments

                Comment on this article