Abstract
AbstractRecently, it was argued that clinically important differences should play no role in sample size calculations. Instead, it was proposed that sample size calculations should focus on setting realistic estimates of treatment benefit. We disagree, and argue in this article that considering the importance of a target difference is necessary in the context of randomised controlled trials of effectiveness, particularly definitive phase III trials. Ignoring clinical importance could have serious ethical and practical consequences.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Pharmacology (medical),Medicine (miscellaneous)
Reference24 articles.
1. Wong H. Minimum important difference is minimally important in sample size calculations. Trials. 2023;24:34. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-023-07092-8.
2. Spiegelhalter DJ, Abrams KR, Myles JP. Bayesian approaches to clinical trials and health-care evaluation. England: John Wiley & Sons; 2004.
3. Cook JA, Julious SA, Sones W, Hampson LV, Hewitt C, Berlin JA, Ashby D, Emsley R, Fergusson DA, Walters SJ, Wilson EC. DELTA2 guidance on choosing the target difference and undertaking and reporting the sample size calculation for a randomised controlled trial. BMJ. 2018;5:363.
4. Bell ML. New guidance to improve sample size calculations for trials: eliciting the target difference. Trials. 2018;19(1):1–4.
5. Cook JA, Julious SA, Sones W, Hampson LV, Hewitt CE, Berlin JA, Ashby D, Elmsley R, Fergusson DA, Walters SJ, Wilson EC. Practical help for specifying the target difference in sample size calculations for RCTs: the DELTA2 five-stage study, including a workshop. Health technology assessment. 2019.
Cited by
6 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献，注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献，订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献