SynthesisPLoS medicine2014
Methods for specifying the target difference in a randomised controlled trial: the Difference ELicitation in TriAls (DELTA) systematic review.
Synthesis in PLoS medicine, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
21 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 37 citations in OpenAlex.
- Total ankle replacement versus ankle arthrodesis for patients aged 50-85 years with end-stage ankle osteoarthritis: the TARVA RCT.Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) · 2023Pooled it
- Guideline
- Design characteristic of randomised controlled trials for geographic atrophy in age-related macular degeneration: selection of outcomes and sample size calculation.Eye (London, England) · 2015Pooled it
- Effects of breathing re-education on endurance, strength of deep neck flexors and pulmonary function in patients with chronic neck pain: A randomised controlled trial.The South African journal of physiotherapy · 2022Trial
- Trial
- Trial
- Definition, analysis, reporting, and interpretation of perioperative bleeding in randomized controlled trials: a methodological systematic review.Perioperative medicine (London, England) · 2026Review
- Trial Sequential Analysis for dichotomous outcomes - a practical guide for systematic review protocols.BMC medical research methodology · 2025Article
- Optimal timing to assess exercise-induced oxidative stress: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Experimental physiology · 2025Review
- Observed intervention effects for mortality in randomised clinical trials: a methodological study protocol.BMJ open · 2023Article
- Patient-reported outcomes and target effect sizes in pragmatic randomized trials in ClinicalTrials.gov: A cross-sectional analysis.PLoS medicine · 2022Review
- Article
- Should treatment effects be estimated in pilot and feasibility studies?Pilot and feasibility studies · 2019Article
- Targeted test evaluation: a framework for designing diagnostic accuracy studies with clear study hypotheses.Diagnostic and prognostic research · 2019Article
- DELTABMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2018Article
- DELTATrials · 2018Article
- Exploratory studies to decide whether and how to proceed with full-scale evaluations of public health interventions: a systematic review of guidance.Pilot and feasibility studies · 2018Review
- Guidance for using pilot studies to inform the design of intervention trials with continuous outcomes.Clinical epidemiology · 2018Article
- Choosing the target difference ('effect size') for a randomised controlled trial - DELTATrials · 2017Review
- Specifying the target difference in the primary outcome for a randomised controlled trial: guidance for researchers.Trials · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors at 7 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) are widely accepted as the preferred study design for evaluating healthcare interventions. When the sample size is determined, a (target) difference is typically specified that the RCT is designed to detect. This provides reassurance that the study will be informative, i.e., should such a difference exist, it is likely to be detected with the required statistical precision. The aim of this review was to identify potential methods for specifying the target difference in an RCT sample size calculation. METHODS AND
findingsA comprehensive systematic review of medical and non-medical literature was carried out for methods that could be used to specify the target difference for an RCT sample size calculation. The databases searched were MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, the Cochrane Methodology Register, PsycINFO, Science Citation Index, EconLit, the Education Resources Information Center (ERIC), and Scopus (for in-press publications); the search period was from 1966 or the earliest date covered, to between November 2010 and January 2011. Additionally, textbooks addressing the methodology of clinical trials and International Conference on Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Registration of Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (ICH) tripartite guidelines for clinical trials were also consulted. A narrative synthesis of methods was produced. Studies that described a method that could be used for specifying an important and/or realistic difference were included. The search identified 11,485 potentially relevant articles from the databases searched. Of these, 1,434 were selected for full-text assessment, and a further nine were identified from other sources. Fifteen clinical trial textbooks and the ICH tripartite guidelines were also reviewed. In total, 777 studies were included, and within them, seven methods were identified-anchor, distribution, health economic, opinion-seeking, pilot study, review of the evidence base, and standardised effect size.
conclusionsA variety of methods are available that researchers can use for specifying the target difference in an RCT sample size calculation. Appropriate methods may vary depending on the aim (e.g., specifying an important difference versus a realistic difference), context (e.g., research question and availability of data), and underlying framework adopted (e.g., Bayesian versus conventional statistical approach). Guidance on the use of each method is given. No single method provides a perfect solution for all contexts.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.