Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Evidence-based sample size calculations based upon updated meta-analysis.

Alexander J Sutton1, Nicola J Cooper, David R Jones

  • 1Department of Health Sciences, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK. ajs22@le.ac.uk

Statistics in Medicine
|September 19, 2006
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Comparison of outcomes on hypoxia-inducible factor prolyl hydroxylase inhibitors (HIF-PHIs) in anaemia associated with chronic kidney disease: network meta-analyses in dialysis and non-dialysis dependent populations.

Clinical kidney journal·2024
Same author

A More Extensive Lymphadenectomy Enhances Survival After Neoadjuvant Chemoradiotherapy in Locally Advanced Esophageal Adenocarcinoma.

Annals of surgery·2020
Same author

Two-Year Quality of Life Outcomes After Robotic-Assisted Minimally Invasive and Open Esophagectomy.

The Annals of thoracic surgery·2020
Same author

Is Routine Chest Radiography Necessary After Endobronchial Ultrasound-guided Fine Needle Aspiration?

The Annals of thoracic surgery·2020
Same author

Performance Comparison Between SURPAS and ACS NSQIP Surgical Risk Calculator in Pulmonary Resection.

The Annals of thoracic surgery·2020
Same author

External Validation of Surgical Risk Preoperative Assessment System in Pulmonary Resection.

The Annals of thoracic surgery·2020
Same journal

A Mixture of Distributed Lag Non-Linear Models to Account for Spatially Heterogeneous Exposure-Lag-Response Associations.

Statistics in medicine·2026
Same journal

Practical Considerations for Gaussian Process Modeling for Causal Inference in Quasi-Experimental Studies With Panel Data.

Statistics in medicine·2026
Same journal

Covariate Adjustment for Wilcoxon Two Sample Statistic and Test.

Statistics in medicine·2026
Same journal

Beyond Fixed Thresholds: Optimizing Summaries of Wearable Device Data via Piecewise Linearization of Quantile Functions.

Statistics in medicine·2026
Same journal

A Causal Framework for Evaluating the Total Effect of Strategies Aiming to Expand Screening and to Improve Outcomes.

Statistics in medicine·2026
Same journal

Causal Effects on Nonterminal Event Time With Application to Antibiotic Usage and Future Resistance.

Statistics in medicine·2026
See all related articles

Designing new randomized controlled trials (RCTs) can be improved by basing sample size calculations on existing meta-analyses. This approach enhances evidence-based medicine by optimizing trial power and resource allocation.

Area of Science:

  • Biostatistics
  • Clinical Trials Methodology
  • Evidence-Based Medicine

Background:

  • Meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are crucial for evidence-based medicine.
  • Current trial design often overlooks future meta-analytic contributions.
  • Sample size determination for new RCTs is typically performed in isolation.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To present a framework for calculating sample sizes of future RCTs using existing meta-analysis data.
  • To explore both fixed and random effects models for sample size determination.
  • To consider extensions for designing a series of new trials.

Main Methods:

  • Developed a framework for sample size calculation based on meta-analysis results.
  • Utilized Bayesian Markov Chain Monte Carlo simulation for random effects models.

Related Experiment Videos

  • Investigated various criteria for inference and power calculations.
  • Averaged prior power expectation over the prior distribution of the true treatment effect.

    • Main Results:

    • Sample size calculation can be effectively based on updated meta-analyses.
    • Power is significantly influenced by the statistical model used in meta-analysis.
    • Large studies may have minimal impact on meta-analyses with substantial heterogeneity.
    • The choice of statistical model impacts inferences across multiple studies.

    Conclusions:

    • Integrating meta-analysis results into RCT sample size planning is beneficial.
    • The statistical model choice (fixed vs. random effects) critically affects trial power and inference.
    • Consideration of between-study heterogeneity is vital when designing series of trials.
    • The appropriateness of random effects models warrants careful evaluation in multi-trial contexts.