Related Experiment Video
Updated: Feb 4, 2026
Author Spotlight: Advancements and Challenges in Surgical Treatments for Postamputation Pain
Published on: March 8, 2024
A study of target effect sizes in randomised controlled trials published in the Health Technology Assessment journal
Joanne C Rothwell1,2, Steven A Julious3, Cindy L Cooper4
1School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK. j.c.rothwell@sheffield.ac.uk.
Background:
When designing a randomised controlled trial (RCT), an important consideration is the sample size required. This is calculated from several components; one of which is the target difference. This study aims to review the currently reported methods of elicitation of the target difference as well as to quantify the target differences used in Health Technology Assessment (HTA)-funded trials.
Methods:
Trials were identified from the National Institute of Health Research Health Technology Assessment journal. A total of 177 RCTs published between 2006 and 2016 were assessed for eligibility. Eligibility was established by the design of the trial and the quality of data available. The trial designs were parallel-group, superiority RCTs with a continuous primary endpoint. Data were extracted and the standardised anticipated and observed effect size estimates were calculated. Exclusion criteria was based on trials not providing enough detail in the sample size calculation and results, and trials not being of parallel-group, superiority design.
Results:
A total of 107 RCTs were included in the study from 102 reports. The most commonly reported method for effect size derivation was a review of evidence and use of previous research (52.3%). This was common across all clinical areas. The median standardised target effect size was 0.30 (interquartile range: 0.20-0.38), with the median standardised observed effect size 0.11 (IQR 0.05-0.29). The maximum anticipated and observed effect sizes were 0.76 and 1.18, respectively. Only two trials had anticipated target values above 0.60.
Conclusion:
The most commonly reported method of elicitation of the target effect size is previous published research. The average target effect size was 0.3. A clear distinction between the target difference and the minimum clinically important difference is recommended when designing a trial. Transparent explanation of target difference elicitation is advised, with multiple methods including a review of evidence and opinion-seeking advised as the more optimal methods for effect size quantification.
More Related Videos
09:23Assessing Two-dimensional Crystallization Trials of Small Membrane Proteins for Structural Biology Studies by Electron Crystallography
Published on: October 29, 2010
06:13Author Spotlight: Exploring the Impact of Reduced Resistance Exercise Volume on Metabolic Health
Published on: December 1, 2023
Related Concept Videos
01:30Health Information Technology and Healthcare Information System
Health Information Technology, commonly called HIT, integrates advanced information systems and technology in healthcare settings. Its primary functions include:
01:23Journal Bearings
To better understand the concept of journal bearings, consider a rope winch with dry or...
01:16Precipitate Formation and Particle Size Control
The obtained precipitate should be either a pure substance of known composition or easily converted to one by a simple process, such as ignition or drying. In addition, the precipitate should be insoluble and easily filterable. In general, filterability...
01:29Assessment of the Gastrointestinal System II: Health Perception Pattern
Health Perception Patterns
Health perception patterns offer valuable insights into a patient's lifestyle habits and how they may impact their GI health. These patterns include:
01:21Nursing Assessment of the Genitourinary System I: Health History
01:23Types of Biopharmaceutical Studies: Controlled and Non-Controlled Approaches
Non-controlled studies, commonly employed for initial exploration, lack a control group, rendering them susceptible to biases and external influences. In contrast,...