4,990 research outputs found
Estimating the sample size for a pilot randomised trial to minimise the overall trial sample size for the external pilot and main trial for a continuous outcome variable.
No full textSample size justification is an important consideration when planning a clinical trial, not only for the main trial but also for any preliminary pilot trial. When the outcome is a continuous variable, the sample size calculation requires an accurate estimate of the standard deviation of the outcome measure. A pilot trial can be used to get an estimate of the standard deviation, which could then be used to anticipate what may be observed in the main trial. However, an important consideration is that pilot trials often estimate the standard deviation parameter imprecisely. This paper looks at how we can choose an external pilot trial sample size in order to minimise the sample size of the overall clinical trial programme, that is, the pilot and the main trial together. We produce a method of calculating the optimal solution to the required pilot trial sample size when the standardised effect size for the main trial is known. However, as it may not be possible to know the standardised effect size to be used prior to the pilot trial, approximate rules are also presented. For a main trial designed with 90% power and two-sided 5% significance, we recommend pilot trial sample sizes per treatment arm of 75, 25, 15 and 10 for standardised effect sizes that are extra small (≤0.1), small (0.2), medium (0.5) or large (0.8), respectively
The statistical interpretation of pilot trials: should significance thresholds be reconsidered?
No full textIn an evaluation of a new health technology, a pilot trial may be undertaken prior to a trial that makes a definitive assessment of benefit. The objective of pilot studies is to provide sufficient evidence that a larger definitive trial can be undertaken and, at times, to provide a preliminary assessment of benefit
Guidance for using pilot studies to inform the design of intervention trials with continuous outcomes
No full textMelanie L Bell,1 Amy L Whitehead,2 Steven A Julious2 1Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Mel and Enid Zuckerman College of Public Health, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA; 2Medical Statistics Group, Design, Trials and Statistics, School of Health and Related Research (ScHARR), University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK Background: A pilot study can be an important step in the assessment of an intervention by providing information to design the future definitive trial. Pilot studies can be used to estimate the recruitment and retention rates and population variance and to provide preliminary evidence of efficacy potential. However, estimation is poor because pilot studies are small, so sensitivity analyses for the main trial’s sample size calculations should be undertaken.Methods: We demonstrate how to carry out easy-to-perform sensitivity analysis for designing trials based on pilot data using an example. Furthermore, we introduce rules of thumb for the size of the pilot study so that the overall sample size, for both pilot and main trials, is minimized.Results: The example illustrates how sample size estimates for the main trial can alter dramatically by plausibly varying assumptions. Required sample size for 90% power varied from 392 to 692 depending on assumptions. Some scenarios were not feasible based on the pilot study recruitment and retention rates.Conclusion: Pilot studies can be used to help design the main trial, but caution should be exercised. We recommend the use of sensitivity analyses to assess the robustness of the design assumptions for a main trial. Keywords: pilot, feasibility, sample size, power, randomized controlled trial, sensitivity analysi
Are pilot trials useful for predicting randomisation and attrition rates in definitive studies: A review of publicly funded trials
No full textBACKGROUND/AIMS: External pilot trials are recommended for testing the feasibility of main or confirmatory trials. However, there is little evidence that progress in external pilot trials actually predicts randomisation and attrition rates in the main trial. To assess the use of external pilot trials in trial design, we compared randomisation and attrition rates in publicly funded randomised controlled trials with rates in their pilots. METHODS: Randomised controlled trials for which there was an external pilot trial were identified from reports published between 2004 and 2013 in the Health Technology Assessment Journal. Data were extracted from published papers, protocols and reports. Bland-Altman plots and descriptive statistics were used to investigate the agreement of randomisation and attrition rates between the full and external pilot trials. RESULTS: Of 561 reports, 41 were randomised controlled trials with pilot trials and 16 met criteria for a pilot trial with sufficient data. Mean attrition and randomisation rates were 21.1% and 50.4%, respectively, in the pilot trials and 16.8% and 65.2% in the main. There was minimal bias in the pilot trial when predicting the main trial attrition and randomisation rate. However, the variation was large: the mean difference in the attrition rate between the pilot and main trial was -4.4% with limits of agreement of -37.1% to 28.2%. Limits of agreement for randomisation rates were -47.8% to 77.5%. CONCLUSION: Results from external pilot trials to estimate randomisation and attrition rates should be used with caution as comparison of the difference in the rates between pilots and their associated full trial demonstrates high variability. We suggest using internal pilot trials wherever appropriate
Tutorial in biostatistics - Sample sizes for clinical trials with Normal data
No full textThis article gives an overview of sample size calculations for parallel group and cross‐over studies with Normal data. Sample size derivation is given for trials where the objective is to demonstrate: superiority, equivalence, non‐inferiority, bioequivalence and estimation to a given precision, for different types I and II errors. It is demonstrated how the different trial objectives influence the null and alternative hypotheses of the trials and how these hypotheses influence the calculations. Sample size tables for the different types of trials and worked examples are given
Calculation of confidence intervals for a finite population size
No full textFor any estimate of response, confidence intervals are important as they help quantify a plausible range of values for the population response. However, there may be instances in clinical research when the population size is finite, but we wish to take a sample from the population and make inference from this sample. Instances where you can have a fixed population size include when undertaking a clinical audit of patient records or in a clinical trial a researcher could be checking for transcription errors against patient notes. In this paper, we describe how confidence interval calculations can be calculated for a finite population. These confidence intervals are narrower than confidence intervals from population samples. For the extreme case of when a 100% sample from the population is taken, there is no error and the calculation is the population response. The methods in the paper are described using a case study from clinical data management
Designing clinical trials with uncertain estimates of variability
No full textEThOS - Electronic Theses Online ServiceGBUnited Kingdo
The ABC of non-inferiority margin setting from indirect comparisons
No full textIn a non‐inferiority trial to assess a new investigative treatment, there may need to be consideration of an indirect comparison with placebo using the active control in the current trial. We can, therefore, use the fact that there is a common active control in the comparisons of the investigative treatment and placebo. In analysing a non‐inferiority trial, the ABC of: Assay sensitivity, Bias minimisation and Constancy assumption needs to be considered. It is highlighted how the ABC assumptions can potentially fail when there is placebo creep or a patient population shift. In this situation, the belief about the placebo response expressed in terms of a prior probability in Bayesian formulation could be used with the observed treatment effects to set the non‐inferiority limit
Using confidence intervals around individual means to assess statistical significance between two means
No full textIn summarizing individual means by treatment in tables and figures it is recommended that 84% confidence intervals be produced. Doing this will add an extra dimension to interpretation - allowing an assessment of statistical significance at the 5% level. With 84% confidence intervals, in terms of a range of plausible values for the population mean, interpretation would be different compared to the standard 95%. However, 84% confidence intervals do still also describe a plausible range for the means. In a context with plots by time a multiplicity issue may be raised which will need to be accounted for. However, such graphs are often produced only for exploratory purposes and so any assessment of statistical significance may be made in this context. Relaxing the confidence intervals around individual means is something that has been discussed for sometime now [1-3] and in a context with figures such as Figure 1 does add to the value of diagrammatic representation of studies [4]. When quoting the difference between two means 95% should still be used
- …
