Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24824338›Full record

SynthesisPLoS medicine2014

Methods for specifying the target difference in a randomised controlled trial: the Difference ELicitation in TriAls (DELTA) systematic review.

Jenni Hislop, Temitope E Adewuyi, Luke D Vale, Kirsten Harrild, Cynthia Fraser, Tara Gurung, Douglas G Altman, Andrew H Briggs, Peter Fayers, Craig R Ramsay and 5 more

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
3.1field-weighted citation impact, top 8% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

21 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 37 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Guideline
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. DELTABMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2018
    Article
  16. DELTATrials · 2018
    Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

15 authors at 7 institutions in 3 countries.

Jenni HislopInstitute of Health and Society, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom.
Temitope E AdewuyiAcademic Urology Unit, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, United Kingdom.
Luke D ValeInstitute of Health and Society, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom.
Kirsten HarrildPopulation Health, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, United Kingdom.
Cynthia FraserHealth Services Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, United Kingdom.
Tara GurungWarwick Evidence, University of Warwick, Coventry, United Kingdom.
Douglas G AltmanCentre for Statistics in Medicine, Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Andrew H BriggsInstitute of Health and Wellbeing, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, United Kingdom.
Peter FayersPopulation Health, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, United Kingdom; Department of Cancer Research and Molecular Medicine, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway.
Craig R RamsayHealth Services Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, United Kingdom.
John D NorrieCentre for Healthcare Randomised Trials, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, United Kingdom.
Ian M HarveyFaculty of Health, University of East Anglia, Norwich, United Kingdom.
Brian BuckleyNational University of Ireland, Galway, Ireland.
Jonathan A CookHealth Services Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, United Kingdom; Centre for Statistics in Medicine, Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
DELTA group
University of Aberdeen · GBNewcastle University · GBNuffield Orthopaedic Centre · GBOllscoil na Gaillimhe – University of Galway · IEUniversity of East Anglia · GBUniversity of Glasgow · GBUniversity of Warwick · GB

Funding

Cancer Research UK 16895Chief Scientist Office HSRU1Medical Research Council G0601938Medical Research Council G0902147Medical Research Council G1002292Medical Research Council MR/K02325X/1
6 · The paper itself

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

Evidence-Based MedicineExpert TestimonyHumansPilot ProjectsRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicReference Standards

Identifiers

PMID24824338
PMCPMC4019477
OpenAlexW2143818021

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.