Literature DB >> 24695962

Sample Size and Power When Designing a Randomized Trial for the Estimation of Treatment, Selection, and Preference Effects.

Robin M Turner1, Stephen D Walter2, Petra Macaskill1, Kirsten J McCaffery1, Les Irwig1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: A 2-stage randomized trial design, incorporating participant choice, provides unbiased estimates of the effects of the treatment or intervention (treatment effect), the difference between outcomes for participants who prefer one treatment compared with another (selection effect), and the interaction between participants' preferences for treatment and the treatment actually received (preference effect). It is important to ensure that such trials are adequately powered to estimate these effects. SAMPLE SIZE FORMULAS: This paper presents methods for determining the required sample sizes for estimating treatment, selection, and preference effects. We demonstrate the changes in sample size as various key parameters are changed. In general, approximately twice as many participants (in total) are needed to have equivalent power for detecting both treatment and selection/preference effects compared with a trial of the treatment effect alone. PRIMARY SCREENING EXAMPLE: We illustrate their application for the design of a primary screening trial comparing human papillomavirus DNA testing versus cervical screening (by Pap smear). Our example would require 520 participants to have 80% power to detect moderate-sized preference and selection effects and a small to moderate treatment effect.
CONCLUSIONS: With the growing interest in understanding treatment choices and with the use of decision aids, well-designed and adequately powered 2-stage randomized trial designs offer the opportunity to determine the effects of participants' preferences. Our sample size formulas will help future studies ensure that they have adequate power to detect selection and preference effects.
© The Author(s) 2014.

Entities:  

Keywords:  2-stage design; HPV triage testing; cervical screening; human papillomavirus; preference effects; selection effects; treatment effects

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24695962     DOI: 10.1177/0272989X14525264

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Decis Making        ISSN: 0272-989X            Impact factor:   2.583


  5 in total

1.  Preference option randomized design (PORD) for comparative effectiveness research: Statistical power for testing comparative effect, preference effect, selection effect, intent-to-treat effect, and overall effect.

Authors:  Moonseong Heo; Paul Meissner; Alain H Litwin; Julia H Arnsten; M Diane McKee; Alison Karasz; Paula McKinley; Colin D Rehm; Earle C Chambers; Ming-Chin Yeh; Judith Wylie-Rosett
Journal:  Stat Methods Med Res       Date:  2017-11-09       Impact factor: 3.021

2.  A Randomized Preference Trial Comparing Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy and Yoga for the Treatment of Late-Life Worry: Examination of Impact on Depression, Generalized Anxiety, Fatigue, Pain, Social Participation, and Physical Function.

Authors:  Suzanne C Danhauer; Michael E Miller; Jasmin Divers; Andrea Anderson; Gena Hargis; Gretchen A Brenes
Journal:  Glob Adv Health Med       Date:  2022-05-16

3.  An alternative method to analyse the biomarker-strategy design.

Authors:  Cornelia Ursula Kunz; Thomas Jaki; Nigel Stallard
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2018-09-09       Impact factor: 2.373

4.  Accounting for health literacy and intervention preferences when reducing unhealthy snacking: protocol for an online randomised controlled trial.

Authors:  Julie Ayre; Erin Cvejic; Carissa Bonner; Robin M Turner; Stephen D Walter; Kirsten J McCaffery
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2019-05-28       Impact factor: 2.692

5.  A randomized preference trial of cognitive-behavioral therapy and yoga for the treatment of worry in anxious older adults.

Authors:  Gretchen A Brenes; Jasmin Divers; Michael E Miller; Suzanne C Danhauer
Journal:  Contemp Clin Trials Commun       Date:  2018-05-04
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.