ArticleTrials2024
Clinical trials with mechanism evaluation of intervention(s): mind the power and sample size calculation.
Article in Trials, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Mediating Effect of Physiological Health Fear Between Depressive Mood and Sleep Quality in Elderly Parkinson's Disease Patients.Brain and behavior · 2026Article
- Inference in group sequential designs with causal mechanisms: implications for power and mediation analysis.BMC medical research methodology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundMediation analysis, often completed as secondary analysis to estimating the main treatment effect, investigates situations where an exposure may affect an outcome both directly and indirectly through intervening mediator variables. Although there has been much research on power in mediation analyses, most of this has focused on the power to detect indirect effects. Little consideration has been given to the extent to which the strength of the mediation pathways, i.e., the intervention-mediator path and the mediator-outcome path respectively, may affect the power to detect the total effect, which would correspond to the intention-to-treat effect in a randomized trial.
methodsWe conduct a simulation study to evaluate the relation between the mediation pathways and the power of testing the total treatment effect, i.e., the intention-to-treat effect. Consider a sample size that is computed based on the usual formula for testing the total effect in a two-arm trial. We generate data for a continuous mediator and a normal outcome using the conventional mediation models. We estimate the total effect using simple linear regression and evaluate the power of a two-sided test. We explore multiple data generating scenarios by varying the magnitude of the mediation paths whilst keeping the total effect constant.
resultsSimulations show the estimated total effect is unbiased across the considered scenarios as expected, but the mean of its standard error increases with the magnitude of the mediator-outcome path and the variability in the residual error of the mediator, respectively. Consequently, this affects the power of testing the total effect, which is always lower than planned when the mediator-outcome path is non-trivial and a naive sample size was employed. Analytical explanation confirms that the intervention-mediator path does not affect the power of testing the total effect but the mediator-outcome path. The usual effect size consideration can be adjusted to account for the magnitude of the mediator-outcome path and its residual error.
conclusionsThe sample size calculation for studies with efficacy and mechanism evaluation should account for the mediator-outcome association or risk the power to detect the total effect/intention-to-treat effect being lower than planned.
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.