Practical help for specifying the target difference in sample size calculations for RCTs: the DELTA2 five-stage study, including a workshop

Abstract

Background The randomised controlled trial is widely considered to be the gold standard study for comparing the effectiveness of health interventions. Central to its design is a calculation of the number of participants needed (the sample size) for the trial. The sample size is typically calculated by specifying the magnitude of the difference in the primary outcome between the intervention effects for the population of interest. This difference is called the ‘target difference’ and should be appropriate for the principal estimand of interest and determined by the primary aim of the study. The target difference between treatments should be considered realistic and/or important by one or more key stakeholder groups. Objective The objective of the report is to provide practical help on the choice of target difference used in the sample size calculation for a randomised controlled trial for researchers and funder representatives. Methods The Difference ELicitation in TriAls2 (DELTA2) recommendations and advice were developed through a five-stage process, which included two literature reviews of existing funder guidance and recent methodological literature; a Delphi process to engage with a wider group of stakeholders; a 2-day workshop; and finalising the core document. Results Advice is provided for definitive trials (Phase III/IV studies). Methods for choosing the target difference are reviewed. To aid those new to the topic, and to encourage better practice, 10 recommendations are made regarding choosing the target difference and undertaking a sample size calculation. Recommended reporting items for trial proposal, protocols and results papers under the conventional approach are also provided. Case studies reflecting different trial designs and covering different conditions are provided. Alternative trial designs and methods for choosing the sample size are also briefly considered. Conclusions Choosing an appropriate sample size is crucial if a study is to inform clinical practice. The number of patients recruited into the trial needs to be sufficient to answer the objectives; however, the number should not be higher than necessary to avoid unnecessary burden on patients and wasting precious resources. The choice of the target difference is a key part of this process under the conventional approach to sample size calculations. This document provides advice and recommendations to improve practice and reporting regarding this aspect of trial design. Future work could extend the work to address other less common approaches to the sample size calculations, particularly in terms of appropriate reporting items. Funding Funded by the Medical Research Council (MRC) UK and the National Institute for Health Research as part of the MRC–National Institute for Health Research Methodology Research programme.

Behavioural Activation for Social IsoLation (BASIL+) trial (Behavioural activation to mitigate depression and loneliness among older people with long-term conditions): Protocol for a fully-powered pragmatic randomised controlled trial

“…For populations with case-level depression, a successful treatment outcome has been defined as 5 points on the PHQ9 [41]; however, this was calculated using distribution methods, which are not currently advocated [42], and does not incorporate our wider population of interest. In an older population with subthreshold depression a difference of 1.3 has been found to be clinically and cost-effective [43] with a standard deviation of 4, equating to a standardised effect size of 0.325.…”

DAC Target Policy Profile (TPoP)

“…19 Such statements quantitatively establish that (and set forth 'how') a proposed change will be significantly superior to the status quo or at least non-inferior to it. That is, in a fashion much like the TPP and Minimum Clinically Important Difference (MCID) in clinical trials, [20][21][22] the TPoP ought to be accompanied by a statement of a Minimum Policy-Important Difference (MPID) in terms of policy impact. Unlike the Target Product Profile (TPP) and conventional clinical trial design and clinical MCID, the TPoP encourages the investigator and other stakeholders to jointly set forth one or more MPID value-points and their rationale in the relevant dimensions, such as economic value added (EVA), DALYs averted, or employment rate improvement.…”

Comparison of the clinical and cost effectiveness of two management strategies (rehabilitation versus surgical reconstruction) for non-acute anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury: study protocol for the ACL SNNAP randomised controlled trial

“…After receiving the intervention, a small number of participants (approx. [30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40] who consented at trial entry to being contacted about the interview study will be invited to participate in semi-structured interviews.…”

“…Estimates of the minimal detectable change (MDC) for the two KOOS subscales most relevant for ACLD vary between five and 12 points (Symptoms 5-9, and Sport/Rec 6-12) [36]. A mean target difference of eight points in the primary outcome, KOOS4, along with a standard deviation of 19 (the highest value observed in a trial of acute patients at baseline amongst the KOOS subscales) were assumed [37,38]. Given these assumptions, 120 participants per group are required (1:1 allocation, 240 in total) to achieve 90% power at two-sided 5% significance level in the absence of any clustering of outcome.…”