Literature DB >> 20827353

Sample size calculation in clinical trials: part 13 of a series on evaluation of scientific publications.

Bernd Röhrig1, Jean-Baptist du Prel, Daniel Wachtlin, Robert Kwiecien, Maria Blettner.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: In this article, we discuss the purpose of sample size calculation in clinical trials, the need for it, and the methods by which it is accomplished. Study samples that are either too small or too large are unacceptable, for clinical, methodological, and ethical reasons. The physicians participating in clinical trials should be directly involved in sample size planning, because their expertise and knowledge of the literature are indispensable.
METHODS: We explain the process of sample size calculation on the basis of articles retrieved by a selective search of the international literature, as well as our own experience.
RESULTS: We present a fictitious clinical trial in which two antihypertensive agents are to be compared to each other with a t-test and then show how the appropriate size of the study sample should be calculated. Next, we describe the general principles of sample size calculation that apply when any kind of statistical test is to be used. We give further illustrative examples and explain what types of expert medical knowledge and assumptions are needed to calculate the appropriate sample size for each. These generally depend on the particular statistical test that is to be performed.
CONCLUSION: In any clinical trial, the sample size has to be planned on a justifiable, rational basis. The purpose of sample size calculation is to determine the optimal number of participants (patients) to be included in the trial. Sample size calculation requires the collaboration of experienced biostatisticians and physician-researchers: expert medical knowledge is an essential part of it.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20827353      PMCID: PMC2933537          DOI: 10.3238/arztebl.2010.0552

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Dtsch Arztebl Int        ISSN: 1866-0452            Impact factor:   5.594


  8 in total

1.  Sample size estimation: how many individuals should be studied?

Authors:  John Eng
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2003-05       Impact factor: 11.105

2.  Power calculation for cohort studies with improved estimation of expected numbers of deaths.

Authors:  M Blettner; D Ashby
Journal:  Soz Praventivmed       Date:  1992

3.  Choosing statistical tests: part 12 of a series on evaluation of scientific publications.

Authors:  Jean-Baptist du Prel; Bernd Röhrig; Gerhard Hommel; Maria Blettner
Journal:  Dtsch Arztebl Int       Date:  2010-05-14       Impact factor: 5.594

4.  Confidence interval or p-value?: part 4 of a series on evaluation of scientific publications.

Authors:  Jean-Baptist du Prel; Gerhard Hommel; Bernd Röhrig; Maria Blettner
Journal:  Dtsch Arztebl Int       Date:  2009-05-08       Impact factor: 5.594

Review 5.  Study design in medical research: part 2 of a series on the evaluation of scientific publications.

Authors:  Bernd Röhrig; Jean-Baptist du Prel; Maria Blettner
Journal:  Dtsch Arztebl Int       Date:  2009-03-13       Impact factor: 5.594

6.  Statistics and ethics in medical research. Misuse of statistics is unethical.

Authors:  D G Altman
Journal:  Br Med J       Date:  1980-11-01

7.  The continuing unethical conduct of underpowered clinical trials.

Authors:  Scott D Halpern; Jason H T Karlawish; Jesse A Berlin
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2002-07-17       Impact factor: 56.272

8.  Feasibility of a cohort study on health risks caused by occupational exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields.

Authors:  Jürgen Breckenkamp; Gabriele Berg-Beckhoff; Eva Münster; Joachim Schüz; Brigitte Schlehofer; Jürgen Wahrendorf; Maria Blettner
Journal:  Environ Health       Date:  2009-05-29       Impact factor: 5.984

  8 in total
  34 in total

1.  Randomized controlled trials-an indispensible part of clinical research.

Authors:  Andreas Stang
Journal:  Dtsch Arztebl Int       Date:  2011-09-30       Impact factor: 5.594

Review 2.  Randomized controlled trials: part 17 of a series on evaluation of scientific publications.

Authors:  Maria Kabisch; Christian Ruckes; Monika Seibert-Grafe; Maria Blettner
Journal:  Dtsch Arztebl Int       Date:  2011-09-30       Impact factor: 5.594

Review 3.  Quality of the supportive and palliative oncology literature: a focused analysis on randomized controlled trials.

Authors:  David Hui; Joseph Arthur; Shalini Dalal; Eduardo Bruera
Journal:  Support Care Cancer       Date:  2011-09-21       Impact factor: 3.603

4.  The Complexity of Conducting a Multicenter Clinical Trial: Taking It to the Next Level Stipulated by the Federal Agencies.

Authors:  Kevin C Chung; Sunitha Malay; Melissa J Shauver
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg       Date:  2019-12       Impact factor: 4.730

Review 5.  On the proper use of the crossover design in clinical trials: part 18 of a series on evaluation of scientific publications.

Authors:  Stefan Wellek; Maria Blettner
Journal:  Dtsch Arztebl Int       Date:  2012-04-13       Impact factor: 5.594

6.  Experimental design and sample size considerations in longitudinal magnetic resonance imaging-based biomarker detection for multiple sclerosis.

Authors:  Menghan Hu; Matthew K Schindler; Blake E Dewey; Daniel S Reich; Russell T Shinohara; Ani Eloyan
Journal:  Stat Methods Med Res       Date:  2020-02-19       Impact factor: 3.021

Review 7.  Establishing equivalence or non-inferiority in clinical trials: part 20 of a series on evaluation of scientific publications.

Authors:  Stefan Wellek; Maria Blettner
Journal:  Dtsch Arztebl Int       Date:  2012-10-12       Impact factor: 5.594

8.  Bilateral endoscopic total extraperitoneal (TEP) inguinal hernia repair does not induce obstructive azoospermia: data of a retrospective and prospective trial.

Authors:  S Skawran; D Weyhe; B Schmitz; O Belyaev; K H Bauer
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2011-07       Impact factor: 3.352

9.  [Influence of impact factor on reporting sample size calculations in publications on studies exemplified by AMD treatment : Cross-sectional investigation on the presence of sample size calculations in publications of RCTs on AMD treatment in journals with low and high impact factors].

Authors:  Sabrina Tulka; Berit Geis; Stephanie Knippschild; Christine Baulig; Frank Krummenauer
Journal:  Ophthalmologe       Date:  2020-02       Impact factor: 1.059

10.  [Value and acceptance of risk assessment for Alzheimer's disease].

Authors:  O Bartzsch; J Gertheiss; P Calabrese
Journal:  Nervenarzt       Date:  2015-12       Impact factor: 1.214

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.