In reply: Determining the sample size in a clinical trial
Authors: Adrienne Kirby, Val Gebski and Anthony C Keech
Published online: 7 April 2003
In reply: A key message of our article is that the minimum possible difference that would render the intervention clinically worthwhile needs to be determined in the design phase of the study.1 This potential clinical difference (net advantage over standard care) must, of necessity, incorporate the potential trade-offs between any outcome advantages and associated toxicities and/or cost disadvantages.
In determining the minimum clinically worthwhile difference, the intention is not to ignore Level I evidence (phase III studies and meta-analyses) when such evidence exists. However, in most cases of designing a phase III study, such evidence is not available. In this instance, the use of phase II information (which can often provide good estimates of potential side effects and toxicities) can help to inform the estimated advantage in clinical outcome which would be needed to justify widespread use of the intervention. Tools have been developed to help clinicians determine worthwhile benefit against toxicity trade-offs for individual patients.2
While there are instances of study results reliably showing statistical significance without the measured effect being sufficiently large to be considered clinically relevant, this occurs rarely. Far more commonly, statistically non-significant results may obscure clinically relevant outcomes because studies have been seriously underpowered.3 For example, 17 of the first 22 small trials of thrombolytic therapy compared with placebo for acute myocardial infarction reported non-significant results, although they showed a 19% reduction in early mortality (2P < 0.01) in subsequent meta-analysis.4
Individual doctors treating their patients ultimately determine whether net differences are sufficiently worthwhile to change their clinical practice. The fundamental principle is that clinical trials should be designed with sufficient power (through having appropriate sample sizes) to detect differences that doctors would consider clinically worthwhile to improve health outcomes.
References
- Kirby A, Gebski V, Keech AC. Determining the sample size in a clinical trial. Med J Aust 2002; 177: 256-257. <eMJA full text>
- Shakespeare TP, Gebski VJ, Veness MJ, Simes J. Improving the interpretation of clinical studies using confidence levels, clinical significance curves and riskbenefit contours. Lancet 2001; 357: 1349-1353. CBBDFHIJ
- Frieman JA, Chalmers TC, Smith H Jr, Kuebler RR. The importance of beta, the type II error and sample size in the design and interpretation of the randomised control trial: survey of 71 "negative" trials. N Engl J Med 1978; 299: 690-694. i1082274
- Lau J, Schmid CH, Chalmers TC. Cumulative meta-analysis of clinical trials builds evidence for exemplary medical care. J Clin Epidemiol 1995; 48: 45-57. i1082276
Interpreting Australian Stillbirth Rate Trends: Implications for Surveillance and Continuous Quality Improvement
Aleena M. Wojcieszek, Kirstine Sketcher-Baker, Christine Andrews, Michael Coory, Imogen Kettle, Melissa Malivoire, David Ellwood, Vicki Flenady
Paracetamol in Pregnancy: Uncertain Evidence, Certain Consequences
David J. Tunnicliffe, Miranda Cumpston, Debra Kennedy, Margie Danchin, Armando Teixeira-Pinto
Fatty Liver Disease in Australia: A Narrative Review on the Epidemiology, Natural History, Prognostication and Management in People With Metabolic Dysfunction
Karl Vaz, Daniel Clayton-Chubb, William W. Kemp, Stuart K. Roberts, Ammar Majeed
Birth prevalence, clinical sequelae, and management of congenital cytomegalovirus infections in Australia, 1999–2023: a national prospective study
Ece Egilmezer, Suzy M Teutsch, Carlos Nunez, Stuart T Hamilton, Adam W Bartlett, Pamela Palasanthiran, Elizabeth J Elliott, William D Rawlinson
The number of cancer‐related deaths that could be attributable to spatial disparities in survival in Australia, 2010–2019: a retrospective population‐based cohort study
Charlotte K Bainomugisa, Jessica Cameron, Paramita Dasgupta, Peter Baade
Mandatory research projects during medical specialist training in Australia and New Zealand
Paulina Stehlik, Caitlin Brandenburg, David A Henry