Literature DB >> 16981184

Evidence-based sample size calculations based upon updated meta-analysis.

Alexander J Sutton1, Nicola J Cooper, David R Jones, Paul C Lambert, John R Thompson, Keith R Abrams.   

Abstract

Meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) provide the highest level of evidence regarding the effectiveness of interventions and as such underpin much of evidence-based medicine. Despite this, meta-analyses are usually produced as observational by-products of the existing literature, with no formal consideration of future meta-analyses when individual trials are being designed. Basing the sample size of a new trial on the results of an updated meta-analysis which will include it, may sometimes make more sense than powering the trial in isolation. A framework for sample size calculation for a future RCT based on the results of a meta-analysis of the existing evidence is presented. Both fixed and random effect approaches are explored through an example. Bayesian Markov Chain Monte Carlo simulation modelling is used for the random effects model since it has computational advantages over the classical approach. Several criteria on which to base inference and hence power are considered. The prior expectation of the power is averaged over the prior distribution for the unknown true treatment effect. An extension to the framework allowing for consideration of the design for a series of new trials is also presented. Results suggest that power can be highly dependent on the statistical model used to meta-analyse the data and even very large studies may have little impact on a meta-analysis when there is considerable between study heterogeneity. This raises issues regarding the appropriateness of the use of random effect models when designing and drawing inferences across a series of studies. Copyright 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2007        PMID: 16981184     DOI: 10.1002/sim.2704

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Stat Med        ISSN: 0277-6715            Impact factor:   2.373


  29 in total

1.  Bayesian meta-experimental design: evaluating cardiovascular risk in new antidiabetic therapies to treat type 2 diabetes.

Authors:  Joseph G Ibrahim; Ming-Hui Chen; H Amy Xia; Thomas Liu
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  2011-09-28       Impact factor: 2.571

2.  Doing clinical trials large enough to achieve adequate reductions in uncertainties about treatment effects.

Authors:  Michael J Campbell
Journal:  J R Soc Med       Date:  2013-02       Impact factor: 5.344

3.  Contour plot assessment of existing meta-analyses confirms robust association of statin use and acute kidney injury risk.

Authors:  Aurélie Chevance; Tibor Schuster; Russell Steele; Nils Ternès; Robert W Platt
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2015-06-16       Impact factor: 6.437

4.  Living Systematic Reviews.

Authors:  Mark Simmonds; Julian H Elliott; Anneliese Synnot; Tari Turner
Journal:  Methods Mol Biol       Date:  2022

Review 5.  A Bayesian mixed-treatment comparison meta-analysis of treatments for alcohol dependence and implications for planning future trials.

Authors:  Stacia M DeSantis; Huirong Zhu
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2014-06-16       Impact factor: 2.583

Review 6.  Updating the evidence for the role of corticosteroids in severe sepsis and septic shock: a Bayesian meta-analytic perspective.

Authors:  John L Moran; Petra L Graham; Sue Rockliff; Andrew D Bersten
Journal:  Crit Care       Date:  2010-07-13       Impact factor: 9.097

7.  Bayesian sequential meta-analysis design in evaluating cardiovascular risk in a new antidiabetic drug development program.

Authors:  Ming-Hui Chen; Joseph G Ibrahim; H Amy Xia; Thomas Liu; Violeta Hennessey
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2013-12-16       Impact factor: 2.373

8.  Conditional power of antidepressant network meta-analysis.

Authors:  Lisa Holper
Journal:  BMC Psychiatry       Date:  2021-03-05       Impact factor: 3.630

9.  Planning future studies based on the conditional power of a meta-analysis.

Authors:  Verena Roloff; Julian P T Higgins; Alex J Sutton
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2012-07-11       Impact factor: 2.373

10.  A comparison of statistical methods for identifying out-of-date systematic reviews.

Authors:  Porjai Pattanittum; Malinee Laopaiboon; David Moher; Pisake Lumbiganon; Chetta Ngamjarus
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2012-11-20       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.