Reporting of Sample Size Calculations in Analgesic Clinical Trials: ACTTION Systematic Review

被引:21
|
作者
McKeown, Andrew [1 ]
Gewandter, Jennifer S. [1 ]
McDermott, Michael P. [2 ,3 ,4 ]
Pawlowski, Joseph R. [1 ]
Poli, Joseph J. [1 ]
Rothstein, Daniel [1 ]
Farrar, John T. [5 ]
Gilron, Ian [6 ]
Katz, Nathaniel P. [7 ,8 ]
Lin, Allison H. [9 ]
Rappaport, Bob A. [9 ]
Rowbotham, Michael C. [10 ]
Turk, Dennis C. [11 ]
Dworkin, Robert H. [1 ,3 ,4 ]
Smith, Shannon M. [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Rochester, Sch Med & Dent, Dept Anesthesiol, Rochester, NY 14642 USA
[2] Univ Rochester, Sch Med & Dent, Dept Biostat & Computat Biol, Rochester, NY 14642 USA
[3] Univ Rochester, Sch Med & Dent, Dept Neurol, Rochester, NY 14642 USA
[4] Univ Rochester, Sch Med & Dent, Ctr Human Expt Therapeut, Rochester, NY 14642 USA
[5] Univ Penn, Philadelphia, PA 19104 USA
[6] Queens Univ, Kingston, ON, Canada
[7] Analges Solut, Natick, MA USA
[8] Tufts Univ, Dept Anesthesiol, Boston, MA 02111 USA
[9] US FDA, Ctr Drug Evaluat & Res, Silver Spring, MD USA
[10] Calif Pacific Med Ctr, San Francisco, CA USA
[11] Univ Washington, Dept Anesthesiol & Pain Med, Seattle, WA 98195 USA
关键词
Sample size; power; pain research; RANDOMIZED-TRIALS; STATISTICAL POWER; ETHICS;
D O I
10.1016/j.jpain.2014.11.010
中图分类号
R74 [神经病学与精神病学];
学科分类号
摘要
Sample size calculations determine the number of participants required to have sufficiently high power to detect a given treatment effect. In this review, we examined the reporting quality of sample size calculations in 172 publications of double-blind randomized controlled trials of noninvasive pharmacologic or interventional (ie, invasive) pain treatments published in European Journal of Pain, Journal of Pain, and Pain from January 2006 through June 2013. Sixty-five percent of publications reported a sample size calculation but only 38% provided all elements required to replicate the calculated sample size. In publications reporting at least 1 element, 54% provided a justification for the treatment effect used to calculate sample size, and 24% of studies with continuous outcome variables justified the variability estimate. Publications of clinical pain condition trials reported a sample size calculation more frequently than experimental pain model trials (77% vs 33%, P < .001) but did not differ in the frequency of reporting all required elements. No significant differences in reporting of any or all elements were detected between publications of trials with industry and nonindustry sponsorship. Twenty-eight percent included a discrepancy between the reported number of planned and randomized participants. This study suggests that sample size calculation reporting in analgesic trial publications is usually incomplete. Investigators should provide detailed accounts of sample size calculations in publications of clinical trials of pain treatments, which is necessary for reporting transparency and communication of pre-trial design decisions. Perspective: In this systematic review of analgesic clinical trials, sample size calculations and the required elements (eg, treatment effect to be detected; power level) were incompletely reported. A lack of transparency regarding sample size calculations may raise questions about the appropriateness of the calculated sample size. (C) 2015 by the American Pain Society
引用
收藏
页码:199 / 206
页数:8
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Sample size calculations in pediatric clinical trials conducted in an ICU: a systematic review
    Nikolakopoulos, Stavros
    Roes, Kit C. B.
    van der Lee, Johanna H.
    van der Tweel, Ingeborg
    TRIALS, 2014, 15
  • [2] Sample size calculations in pediatric clinical trials conducted in an ICU: a systematic review
    Stavros Nikolakopoulos
    Kit C B Roes
    Johanna H van der Lee
    Ingeborg van der Tweel
    Trials, 15
  • [3] Systematic review of sample size calculations and reporting in randomized controlled trials in ophthalmology over a 20-year period
    Kounatidou, Nefeli Eleni
    Tzavara, Chara
    Palioura, Sotiria
    INTERNATIONAL OPHTHALMOLOGY, 2023, 43 (08) : 2999 - 3010
  • [4] Pitfalls in reporting sample size calculation in randomized controlled trials published in leading anaesthesia journals: a systematic review
    Abdulatif, M.
    Mukhtar, A.
    Obayah, G.
    BRITISH JOURNAL OF ANAESTHESIA, 2015, 115 (05) : 699 - 707
  • [5] A systematic review of the reporting of sample size calculations and corresponding data components in observational functional magnetic resonance imaging studies
    Guo, Qing
    Thabane, Lehana
    Hall, Geoffrey
    McKinnon, Margaret
    Goeree, Ron
    Pullenayegum, Eleanor
    NEUROIMAGE, 2014, 86 : 172 - 181
  • [6] Systematic review of sample size calculations and reporting in randomized controlled trials in ophthalmology over a 20-year period
    Nefeli Eleni Kounatidou
    Chara Tzavara
    Sotiria Palioura
    International Ophthalmology, 2023, 43 : 2999 - 3010
  • [7] An introduction to sample size calculations in clinical trials
    Accordini, Simone
    EPIDEMIOLOGIA E PSICHIATRIA SOCIALE-AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL FOR EPIDEMIOLOGY AND PSYCHIATRIC SCIENCES, 2007, 16 (04): : 299 - 301
  • [8] Considerations on sample size and power calculations in randomized clinical trials
    Karlsson, J
    Engebretsen, L
    Dainty, K
    ARTHROSCOPY-THE JOURNAL OF ARTHROSCOPIC AND RELATED SURGERY, 2003, 19 (09) : 997 - 999
  • [9] Reporting and methodological quality of sample size calculations in cluster randomized trials could be improved: a review
    Rutterford, Clare
    Taljaard, Monica
    Dixon, Stephanie
    Copas, Andrew
    Eldridge, Sandra
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2015, 68 (06) : 716 - 723
  • [10] Discrepancies between registered and published primary outcome specifications in analgesic trials: ACTTION systematic review and recommendations
    Smith, Shannon M.
    Wang, Anthony T.
    Pereira, Anthony
    Chang, R. Daniel
    McKeown, Andrew
    Greene, Kaitlin
    Rowbotham, Michael C.
    Burke, Laurie B.
    Coplan, Paul
    Gilron, Ian
    Hertz, Sharon H.
    Katz, Nathaniel P.
    Lin, Allison H.
    McDermott, Michael P.
    Papadopoulos, Elektra J.
    Rappaport, Bob A.
    Sweeney, Michael
    Turk, Dennis C.
    Dworkin, Robert H.
    PAIN, 2013, 154 (12) : 2769 - 2774