Literature DB >> 8484370

Sample sizes for prevention trials have been too small.

F Ederer1, T R Church, J S Mandel.   

Abstract

Planners of several large prevention trials have overestimated the expected incidence of events in the control group, largely because they failed either to recognize or to adequately correct for various effects of population selection. Consequently, the studies have been too small in size or too short in duration to achieve their stated objectives. The selection effects include those engendered by the choice of the target population, the self-selection of volunteers, and protocol exclusions. This paper presents a taxonomy of these effects and the likely direction of their influence on the incidence of events and on mortality rates from other causes. Little information is available to help sample-size planners in adjusting for these effects. A few studies have provided information on the extent to which control group incidence rates have fallen short of expectations. In particular, researchers from the University of Minnesota's Colon Cancer Control Study have provided a detailed comparison of event incidence and all-cause mortality rates with general population rates. (AM J Epidemiol 1993;137:797-810). Other studies should publish similarly detailed information to assist sample-size planners of prevention trials. Until more information is published, this paper provides preliminary guidelines for prevention trial sample-size planning.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1993        PMID: 8484370     DOI: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a116739

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Epidemiol        ISSN: 0002-9262            Impact factor:   4.897


  10 in total

1.  Risk factors associated with age-related macular degeneration. A case-control study in the age-related eye disease study: Age-Related Eye Disease Study Report Number 3.

Authors: 
Journal:  Ophthalmology       Date:  2000-12       Impact factor: 12.079

2.  Sample size matters: a guide for surgeons.

Authors:  Ulrich Guller; Daniel Oertli
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2005-05       Impact factor: 3.352

3.  Attitudes and beliefs toward lung cancer screening among US Veterans.

Authors:  Nichole T Tanner; Leonard E Egede; Clayton Shamblin; Mulugeta Gebregziabher; Gerard A Silvestri
Journal:  Chest       Date:  2013-12       Impact factor: 9.410

4.  Design and sample size considerations for Alzheimer's disease prevention trials using multistate models.

Authors:  Ron Brookmeyer; Nada Abdalla
Journal:  Clin Trials       Date:  2019-04       Impact factor: 2.486

5.  Modeling the mortality reduction due to computed tomography screening for lung cancer.

Authors:  Millennia Foy; Rowena Yip; Xing Chen; Marek Kimmel; Olga Y Gorlova; Claudia I Henschke
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2011-01-10       Impact factor: 6.860

6.  Cancer screening trials: nuts and bolts.

Authors:  Philip C Prorok; Pamela M Marcus
Journal:  Semin Oncol       Date:  2010-06       Impact factor: 4.929

7.  Impact on mortality and cancer incidence rates of using random invitation from population registers for recruitment to trials.

Authors:  Matthew Burnell; Aleksandra Gentry-Maharaj; Andy Ryan; Sophia Apostolidou; Mariam Habib; Jatinderpal Kalsi; Steven Skates; Mahesh Parmar; Mourad W Seif; Nazar N Amso; Keith Godfrey; David Oram; Jonathan Herod; Karin Williamson; Howard Jenkins; Tim Mould; Robert Woolas; John Murdoch; Stephen Dobbs; Simon Leeson; Derek Cruickshank; Stuart Campbell; Lesley Fallowfield; Ian Jacobs; Usha Menon
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2011-03-01       Impact factor: 2.279

8.  Association of Mortality with Ocular Diseases and Visual Impairment in the Age-Related Eye Disease Study 2: Age-Related Eye Disease Study 2 Report Number 13.

Authors:  Chandana Papudesu; Traci E Clemons; Elvira Agrón; Emily Y Chew
Journal:  Ophthalmology       Date:  2017-11-16       Impact factor: 12.079

9.  Improvement in the diagnostic evaluation of a positive fecal occult blood test in an integrated health care organization.

Authors:  Diana L Miglioretti; Carolyn M Rutter; Susan Carol Bradford; Ann G Zauber; Larry G Kessler; Eric J Feuer; David C Grossman
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2008-09       Impact factor: 2.983

10.  Characteristics and trends of clinical trials funded by the National Institutes of Health between 2005 and 2015.

Authors:  Gillian K Gresham; Stephan Ehrhardt; Jill L Meinert; Lawrence J Appel; Curtis L Meinert
Journal:  Clin Trials       Date:  2017-09-07       Impact factor: 2.486

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.