A 10-year-old girl with renal failure and granulomas.

O. Söylemezoğlu,O. Ozkaya,U. Derici,L. Memış,S. Kalman,N. Buyan

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1053/AJKD.2002.33625

IF: 11.072

2002-06-01

American Journal of Kidney Diseases

Abstract:

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Efficient and flexible simulation-based sample size determination for clinical trials with multiple design parameters

Duncan T Wilson,Richard Hooper,Julia Brown,Amanda J Farrin,Rebecca EA Walwyn

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0962280220975790

IF: 2.494

2020-12-02

Statistical Methods in Medical Research

Abstract:Simulation offers a simple and flexible way to estimate the power of a clinical trial when analytic formulae are not available. The computational burden of using simulation has, however, restricted its application to only the simplest of sample size determination problems, often minimising a single parameter (the overall sample size) subject to power being above a target level. We describe a general framework for solving simulation-based sample size determination problems with several design parameters over which to optimise and several conflicting criteria to be minimised. The method is based on an established global optimisation algorithm widely used in the design and analysis of computer experiments, using a non-parametric regression model as an approximation of the true underlying power function. The method is flexible, can be used for almost any problem for which power can be estimated using simulation, and can be implemented using existing statistical software packages. We illustrate its application to a sample size determination problem involving complex clustering structures, two primary endpoints and small sample considerations.

health care sciences & services,medical informatics,mathematical & computational biology,statistics & probability
BASIC: A Bayesian Adaptive Synthetic-Control Design for Phase II Clinical Trials.

Liyun Jiang,Peter F. Thall,Fangrong Yan,Scott Kopetz,Ying Yuan

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/17407745231176445

2023-01-01

Clinical Trials

Abstract:BACKGROUND:Randomized controlled trials are considered the gold standard for evaluating experimental treatments but often require large sample sizes. Single-arm trials require smaller sample sizes but are subject to bias when using historical control data for comparative inferences. This article presents a Bayesian adaptive synthetic-control design that exploits historical control data to create a hybrid of a single-arm trial and a randomized controlled trial.METHODS:The Bayesian adaptive synthetic control design has two stages. In stage 1, a prespecified number of patients are enrolled in a single arm given the experimental treatment. Based on the stage 1 data, applying propensity score matching and Bayesian posterior prediction methods, the usefulness of the historical control data for identifying a pseudo sample of matched synthetic-control patients for making comparative inferences is evaluated. If a sufficient number of synthetic controls can be identified, the single-arm trial is continued. If not, the trial is switched to a randomized controlled trial. The performance of The Bayesian adaptive synthetic control design is evaluated by computer simulation.RESULTS:The Bayesian adaptive synthetic control design achieves power and unbiasedness similar to a randomized controlled trial but on average requires a much smaller sample size, provided that the historical control data patients are sufficiently comparable to the trial patients so that a good number of matched controls can be identified in the historical control data. Compared to a single-arm trial, The Bayesian adaptive synthetic control design yields much higher power and much smaller bias.CONCLUSION:The Bayesian adaptive synthetic-control design provides a useful tool for exploiting historical control data to improve the efficiency of single-arm phase II clinical trials, while addressing the problem of bias when comparing trial results to historical control data. The proposed design achieves power similar to a randomized controlled trial but may require a substantially smaller sample size.
Estimating the Sampling Distribution of Posterior Decision Summaries in Bayesian Clinical Trials

Shirin Golchi,James J. Willard

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/bimj.70002

IF: 1.715

2024-10-30

Biometrical Journal

Abstract:Bayesian inference and the use of posterior or posterior predictive probabilities for decision making have become increasingly popular in clinical trials. The current practice in Bayesian clinical trials relies on a hybrid Bayesian‐frequentist approach where the design and decision criteria are assessed with respect to frequentist operating characteristics such as power and type I error rate conditioning on a given set of parameters. These operating characteristics are commonly obtained via simulation studies. The utility of Bayesian measures, such as "assurance," that incorporate uncertainty about model parameters in estimating the probabilities of various decisions in trials has been demonstrated. However, the computational burden remains an obstacle toward wider use of such criteria. In this article, we propose methodology which utilizes large sample theory of the posterior distribution to define parametric models for the sampling distribution of the posterior summaries used for decision making. The parameters of these models are estimated using a small number of simulation scenarios, thereby refining these models to capture the sampling distribution for small to moderate sample size. The proposed approach toward the assessment of conditional and marginal operating characteristics and sample size determination can be considered as simulation‐assisted rather than simulation‐based. It enables formal incorporation of uncertainty about the trial assumptions via a design prior and significantly reduces the computational burden for the design of Bayesian trials in general.

mathematical & computational biology,statistics & probability
A.I.D.S.--a review: its relationship to dentistry.

P. Buckley,M. Holohan,W. Ryan

Abstract:
Sample Size Estimation in Clinical Research

Xiaofeng Wang,Xinge Ji

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chest.2020.03.010

IF: 9.6

2020-01-01

Chest

Abstract:Sample size determination is an essential step in planning a clinical study.It is critical to understand that different study designs need different methods of sample size estimation.Although there is a vast literature discussing sample size estimation, incorrect or improper formulas continue to be applied.This article reviews basic statistical concepts in sample size estimation, discusses statistical considerations in the choice of a sample size for randomized controlled trials and observational studies, and provides strategies for reducing sample size when planning a study.To assist clinical researchers in performing sample size calculations, we have developed an online calculator for common clinical study designs.The calculator is available at http://riskcalc.org:3838/samplesize/.Finally, we offer our recommendations on reporting sample size determination in clinical studies.
Seamless Phase II/III Design: a Useful Strategy to Reduce the Sample Size for Dose Optimization

Liyun Jiang,Ying Yuan

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djad103

2023-01-01

JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute

Abstract:BACKGROUND:The traditional more-is-better dose selection paradigm, originally developed for cytotoxic chemotherapeutics, can be problematic when applied to the development of novel molecularly targeted agents. Recognizing this issue, the US Food and Drug Administration initiated Project Optimus to reform the dose optimization and selection paradigm in oncology drug development, emphasizing the need for greater attention to benefit-risk considerations.METHODS:We identify different types of phase II/III dose-optimization designs, classified according to trial objectives and endpoint types. Through computer simulations, we examine their operating characteristics and discuss the relevant statistical and design considerations for effective dose optimization.RESULTS:Phase II/III dose-optimization designs are capable of controlling family-wise type I error rates and achieving appropriate statistical power with substantially smaller sample sizes than the conventional approach while also reducing the number of patients who experience toxicity. Depending on the design and scenario, the sample size savings range from 16.6% to 27.3%, with a mean savings of 22.1%.CONCLUSIONS:Phase II/III dose-optimization designs offer an efficient way to reduce sample sizes for dose optimization and accelerate the development of targeted agents. However, because of interim dose selection, the phase II/III dose-optimization design presents logistical and operational challenges and requires careful planning and implementation to ensure trial integrity.
Incorporating Historical Information to Improve Phase I Clinical Trials

Yanhong Zhou,J. Jack Lee,Shunguang Wang,Stuart Bailey,Ying Yuan

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/pst.2121

2021-01-01

Pharmaceutical Statistics

Abstract:Incorporating historical data or real-world evidence has a great potential to improve the efficiency of phase I clinical trials and to accelerate drug development. For model-based designs, such as the continuous reassessment method (CRM), this can be conveniently carried out by specifying a "skeleton," i.e., the prior estimate of dose limiting toxicity (DLT) probability at each dose. In contrast, little work has been done to incorporate historical data or real-world evidence into model-assisted designs, such as the Bayesian optimal interval (BOIN), keyboard, and modified toxicity probability interval (mTPI) designs. This has led to the misconception that model-assisted designs cannot incorporate prior information. In this paper, we propose a unified framework that allows for incorporating historical data or real-world evidence into model-assisted designs. The proposed approach uses the well-established "skeleton" approach, combined with the concept of prior effective sample size, thus it is easy to understand and use. More importantly, our approach maintains the hallmark of model-assisted designs: simplicity---the dose escalation/de-escalation rule can be tabulated prior to the trial conduct. Extensive simulation studies show that the proposed method can effectively incorporate prior information to improve the operating characteristics of model-assisted designs, similarly to model-based designs.
A Sample Size Planning Approach That Considers Both Statistical Significance and Clinical Significance

Bin Jia,Henry S Lynn

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-015-0727-9

IF: 2.728

2015-01-01

Trials

Abstract:Background: The CONSORT statement requires clinical trials to report confidence intervals, which help to assess the precision and clinical importance of the treatment effect. Conventional sample size calculations for clinical trials, however, only consider issues of statistical significance (that is, significance level and power).Method: A more consistent approach is proposed whereby sample size planning also incorporates information on clinical significance as indicated by the boundaries of the confidence limits of the treatment effect.Results: The probabilities of declaring a "definitive positive" or "definitive negative" result (as defined by Guyatt et al., CMAJ 152(2): 169-173, 1995) are controlled by calculating the sample size such that the lower confidence limit under H-1 and the upper confidence limit under H-0 are bounded by relevant cut-offs. Adjustments to the traditional sample size can be directly derived for the comparison of two normally distributed means in a test of nonequality, while simulations are used to estimate the sample size for evaluating the hazards ratio in a proportional-hazards model.Conclusions: This sample size planning approach allows for an assessment of the potential clinical importance and precision of the treatment effect in a clinical trial in addition to considerations of statistical power and type I error.
Sample size estimation and power analysis for clinical research studies

KP Suresh,S Chandrashekara

DOI: https://doi.org/10.4103/0974-1208.97779

2012-01-01

Journal of Human Reproductive Sciences

Abstract:Determining the optimal sample size for a study assures an adequate power to detect statistical significance. Hence, it is a critical step in the design of a planned research protocol. Using too many participants in a study is expensive and exposes more number of subjects to procedure. Similarly, if study is underpowered, it will be statistically inconclusive and may make the whole protocol a failure. This paper covers the essentials in calculating power and sample size for a variety of applied study designs. Sample size computation for single group mean, survey type of studies, 2 group studies based on means and proportions or rates, correlation studies and for case-control for assessing the categorical outcome are presented in detail.
Sample size re-estimation in a superiority clinical trial using a hybrid classical and Bayesian procedure

Maria M Ciarleglio,Christopher D Arendt

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0962280218776991

IF: 2.494

2018-06-05

Statistical Methods in Medical Research

Abstract:When designing studies involving a continuous endpoint, the hypothesized difference in means ([Formula: see text]) and the assumed variability of the endpoint ([Formula: see text]) play an important role in sample size and power calculations. Traditional methods of sample size re-estimation often update one or both of these parameters using statistics observed from an internal pilot study. However, the uncertainty in these estimates is rarely addressed. We propose a hybrid classical and Bayesian method to formally integrate prior beliefs about the study parameters and the results observed from an internal pilot study into the sample size re-estimation of a two-stage study design. The proposed method is based on a measure of power called conditional expected power (CEP), which averages the traditional power curve using the prior distributions of θ and [Formula: see text] as the averaging weight, conditional on the presence of a positive treatment effect. The proposed sample size re-estimation procedure finds the second stage per-group sample size necessary to achieve the desired level of conditional expected interim power, an updated CEP calculation that conditions on the observed first-stage results. The CEP re-estimation method retains the assumption that the parameters are not known with certainty at an interim point in the trial. Notional scenarios are evaluated to compare the behavior of the proposed method of sample size re-estimation to three traditional methods.

health care sciences & services,medical informatics,mathematical & computational biology,statistics & probability
Predictive Probabilities Made Simple: A Fast and Accurate Method for Clinical Trial Decision Making

Joe Marion,Liz Lorenzi,Cora Allen-Savietta,Scott Berry,Kert Viele

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.2406.11406

2024-06-17

Applications

Abstract:Bayesian predictive probabilities are commonly used for interim monitoring of clinical trials through efficacy and futility stopping rules. Despite their usefulness, calculation of predictive probabilities, particularly in pre-experiment trial simulation, can be a significant challenge. We introduce an approximation for computing predictive probabilities using either a p-value or a posterior probability that significantly reduces this burden. We show the approximation has a high degree of concordance with standard Monte Carlo imputation methods for computing predictive probabilities, and present five simulation studies comparing the approximation to the full predictive probability for a range of primary analysis strategies: dichotomous, time-to-event, and ordinal endpoints, as well as historical borrowing and longitudinal modeling. We find that this faster method of predictive probability approximation works well in all five applications, thus significantly reducing the computational burden of trial simulation, allowing more virtual trials to be simulated to achieve greater precision in estimating trial operating characteristics.
Sample size calculation for clinical trials analyzed with the meta‐analytic‐predictive approach

Hongchao Qi,Dimitris Rizopoulos,Joost van Rosmalen

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1618

2023-01-12

Research Synthesis Methods

Abstract:The meta‐analytic‐predictive (MAP) approach is a Bayesian method to incorporate historical controls in new trials that aims to increase the statistical power and reduce the required sample size. Here we investigate how to calculate the sample size of the new trial when historical data is available, and the MAP approach is used in the analysis. In previous applications of the MAP approach, the prior effective sample size (ESS) acted as a metric to quantify the number of subjects the historical information is worth. However, the validity of using the prior ESS in sample size calculation (i.e. reducing the number of randomized controls by the derived prior ESS) is questionable, because different approaches may yield different values for prior ESS. In this work, we propose a straightforward Monte Carlo approach to calculate the sample size that achieves the desired power in the new trial given available historical controls. To make full use of the available historical information to simulate the new trial data, the control parameters are not taken as a point estimate but sampled from the MAP prior. These sampled control parameters and the MAP prior based on the historical data are then used to derive the statistical power for the treatment effect and the resulting required sample size. The proposed sample size calculation approach is illustrated with real‐life data sets with different outcomes from three studies. The results show that this approach to calculating the required sample size for the MAP analysis is straightforward and generic. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

multidisciplinary sciences
Conditional Power and Friends: The Why and How of (Un)planned, Unblinded Sample Size Recalculations in Confirmatory Trials

Kevin Kunzmann,Michael J. Grayling,Kim M. Lee,David S. Robertson,Kaspar Rufibach,James M. S. Wason

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2010.06567

2020-10-14

Abstract:Adapting the final sample size of a trial to the evidence accruing during the trial is a natural way to address planning uncertainty. Designs with adaptive sample size need to account for their optional stopping to guarantee strict type-I error-rate control. A variety of different methods to maintain type-I error-rate control after unplanned changes of the initial sample size have been proposed in the literature. This makes interim analyses for the purpose of sample size recalculation feasible in a regulatory context. Since the sample size is usually determined via an argument based on the power of the trial, an interim analysis raises the question of how the final sample size should be determined conditional on the accrued information. Conditional power is a concept often put forward in this context. Since it depends on the unknown effect size, we take a strict estimation perspective and compare assumed conditional power, observed conditional power, and predictive power with respect to their properties as estimators of the unknown conditional power. We then demonstrate that pre-planning an interim analysis using methodology for unplanned interim analyses is ineffective and naturally leads to the concept of optimal two-stage designs. We conclude that unplanned design adaptations should only be conducted as reaction to trial-external new evidence, operational needs to violate the originally chosen design, or post hoc changes in the objective criterion. Finally, we show that commonly discussed sample size recalculation rules can lead to paradoxical outcomes and propose two alternative ways of reacting to newly emerging trial-external evidence.

Applications
Sample size calculation with simple math for clinical researchers

K. Prasad

DOI: https://doi.org/10.4103/0970-258X.321139

2020-11-01

Abstract:Clinicians often need a quick and rough idea of the sample size to assess the feasibility of their clinical research question, but developing countries often lack access to online calculators or its language. I describe a formula that clinicians, residents or any health researcher can remember and use to calculate sample size with mental arithmetic or with the use of a simple pocket calculator. This article covers controlled clinical trials. The formula for two equal-sized groups is simple: n = (16p [100–p])/d2 per group for dichotomous outcomes, where p is average of the two proportions with events, and d is the difference between the two proportions. For continuous scale outcomes, the formula is n=16s2/d2 per group where s is the standard deviation of the outcome data and d is the difference to be detected. The formula needs to be modified for unequal-sized groups. This simple formula may be helpful to clinicians, residents and clinical researchers to calculate sample size for their research questions. The feasibility of many research questions can be easily checked with the calculated sample size.

Medicine,Mathematics
Sample Size Calculation: Inaccurate A Priori Assumptions for Nuisance Parameters Can Greatly Affect the Power of a Randomized Controlled Trial

Elsa Tavernier,Bruno Giraudeau

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0132578

IF: 3.7

2015-07-14

PLoS ONE

Abstract:We aimed to examine the extent to which inaccurate assumptions for nuisance parameters used to calculate sample size can affect the power of a randomized controlled trial (RCT). In a simulation study, we separately considered an RCT with continuous, dichotomous or time-to-event outcomes, with associated nuisance parameters of standard deviation, success rate in the control group and survival rate in the control group at some time point, respectively. For each type of outcome, we calculated a required sample size N for a hypothesized treatment effect, an assumed nuisance parameter and a nominal power of 80%. We then assumed a nuisance parameter associated with a relative error at the design stage. For each type of outcome, we randomly drew 10,000 relative errors of the associated nuisance parameter (from empirical distributions derived from a previously published review). Then, retro-fitting the sample size formula, we derived, for the pre-calculated sample size N, the real power of the RCT, taking into account the relative error for the nuisance parameter. In total, 23%, 0% and 18% of RCTs with continuous, binary and time-to-event outcomes, respectively, were underpowered (i.e., the real power was < 60%, as compared with the 80% nominal power); 41%, 16% and 6%, respectively, were overpowered (i.e., with real power > 90%). Even with proper calculation of sample size, a substantial number of trials are underpowered or overpowered because of imprecise knowledge of nuisance parameters. Such findings raise questions about how sample size for RCTs should be determined.

multidisciplinary sciences
The symbolic two-step method applied to cancer care delivery research: Safeguarding against designing an underpowered cluster randomized trial with a continuous outcome by accounting for the imprecision in the within- and between-center variation

David Zahrieh,Blaize W Kandler,Jennifer Le-Rademacher

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/17407745231219680

2024-01-21

Clinical Trials

Abstract:Clinical Trials, Ahead of Print. Background:Knowing the predictive factors of the variation in a center-level continuous outcome of interest is valuable in the design and analysis of parallel-arm cluster randomized trials. The symbolic two-step method for sample size planning that we present incorporates this knowledge while simultaneously accounting for patient-level characteristics. Our approach is illustrated through application to cluster randomized trials in cancer care delivery research. The required number of centers (clusters) depends on the between- and within-center variance; the within-center variance is a function of estimates obtained by regressing the log within-center variance on predictive factors. Obtaining accurate estimates of the components needed to characterize the within-center variation is challenging.Methods:Using our previously derived sample size formula, our objective in the current research is to directly account for the imprecision in these estimates, using a Bayesian approach, to safeguard against designing an underpowered study when using the symbolic two-step method. Using estimates of the required components, including the number of centers that contribute to those estimates, we make formal allowance for the imprecision in these estimates on which a sample size will be based.Results:The mean of the distribution for power is consistently smaller than the single point estimate that the sample size formula yields. The reduction in power is more pronounced in the presence of increased uncertainty about the estimates with the reduction becoming more attenuated with increased numbers of centers that contribute to the estimates.Conclusions:Accounting for imprecision in the estimates of the components required for sample size estimation using the symbolic two-step method in the design of a cluster randomized trial yields conservative estimates of power.

medicine, research & experimental
A Practical Simulation Method to Calculate Sample Size of Group Sequential Trials for Time-to-Event Data under Exponential and Weibull Distribution

Zhiwei Jiang,Ling Wang,Chanjuan Li,Jielai Xia,Hongxia Jia

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0044013

IF: 3.7

2012-01-01

PLoS ONE

Abstract:Group sequential design has been widely applied in clinical trials in the past few decades. The sample size estimation is a vital concern of sponsors and investigators. Especially in the survival group sequential trials, it is a thorny question because of its ambiguous distributional form, censored data and different definition of information time. A practical and easy-to-use simulation-based method is proposed for multi-stage two-arm survival group sequential design in the article and its SAS program is available. Besides the exponential distribution, which is usually assumed for survival data, the Weibull distribution is considered here. The incorporation of the probability of discontinuation in the simulation leads to the more accurate estimate. The assessment indexes calculated in the simulation are helpful to the determination of number and timing of the interim analysis. The use of the method in the survival group sequential trials is illustrated and the effects of the varied shape parameter on the sample size under the Weibull distribution are explored by employing an example. According to the simulation results, a method to estimate the shape parameter of the Weibull distribution is proposed based on the median survival time of the test drug and the hazard ratio, which are prespecified by the investigators and other participants. 10+ simulations are recommended to achieve the robust estimate of the sample size. Furthermore, the method is still applicable in adaptive design if the strategy of sample size scheme determination is adopted when designing or the minor modifications on the program are made.
Sample size estimation for cancer randomized trials in the presence of heterogeneous populations

Derek Dinart,Carine Bellera,Virginie Rondeau

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/biom.13527

IF: 1.701

2021-09-03

Biometrics

Abstract:<p>A key issue when designing clinical trials is the estimation of the number of subjects required. Assuming for multicentre trials or biomarker-stratified designs that the effect size between treatment arms is the same among the whole study population might be inappropriate. Limited work is available for properly determining the sample size for such trials. However, we need to account for both, the heterogeneity of the baseline hazards over clusters or strata but also the heterogeneity of the treatment effects, otherwise sample size estimates might be biased. Most existing methods account for either heterogeneous baseline hazards or treatment effects but they dot not allow to simultaneously account for both sources of variations. This article proposes an approach to calculate sample size formula for clustered or stratified survival data relying on frailty models. Both theoretical derivations and simulation results show the proposed approach can guarantee the desired power in worst case scenarios and is often much more efficient than existing approaches. Application to a real clinical trial designs is also illustrated.</p><p>This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved</p>

statistics & probability,mathematical & computational biology,biology
On sample size calculation based on odds ratio in clinical trials.

Hansheng Wang,Shein-Chung Chow,Gang Li

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1081/BIP-120016231

2007-01-01

Journal of Biopharmaceutical Statistics

Abstract:Sample size calculation formulas for testing equality, noninferiority, superiority, and equivalence based on odds ratio were derived under both parallel and one-arm crossover designs. An example concerning the study of odds ratio between a test compound (treatment) and a standard therapy (control) for prevention of relapse in subjects with schizophrenia and schizoaffective disorder is presented to illustrate the derived formulas for sample size calculation for various hypotheses under both a parallel design and a crossover design. Simulations were performed to assess the adequacy of the sample size calculation formulas. Simulation results were given at the end of the paper.
Adapting power calculations to include a superiority margin: what are the implications?

Samuel Bishara

DOI: https://doi.org/10.11613/bm.2024.010101

2024-02-15

Biochemia Medica

Abstract:Graphical abstract Highlights • Superiority margins can be used to plan for clinically significant studies • Prospectively they could eliminate interventions that are unlikely to be beneficial • A study result can be in one of seven positions when considering all hypotheses • We usually don't have a consensus on minimal clinically significant thresholds This paper examines the application of super-superiority margins in study power calculations. Unlike traditional power calculations, which primarily aim to reject the null hypothesis by any margin, a super-superiority margin establishes a clinically significant threshold. Despite potential benefits, this approach, akin to a non-inferiority calculation but in an opposing direction, is rarely used. Implementing a super-superiority margin separates the notion of the likely difference between two groups (the effect size) from the minimum clinically significant difference, without which inconsistent positions could be held. However, these are often used interchangeably. In an audit of 30 recent randomized controlled trial power calculations, four studies utilized the minimal acceptable difference, and nine utilized the expected difference. In the other studies, this was unclarified. In the post hoc scenario, this approach can shed light on the value of undertaking further studies, which is not apparent from the standard power calculation. The acceptance and rejection of the alternate hypothesis for super-superiority, non-inferiority, equivalence, and standard superiority studies have been compared. When a fixed minimal acceptable difference is applied, a study result will be in one of seven logical positions with regards to the simultaneous application of these hypotheses. The trend for increased trial size and the mirror approach of non-inferiority studies implies that newer interventions may be becoming less effective. Powering for superiority could counter this and ensure that a pre-trial evaluation of clinical significance has taken place, which is necessary to confirm that interventions are beneficial.

medical laboratory technology

A 10-year-old girl with renal failure and granulomas.

Efficient and flexible simulation-based sample size determination for clinical trials with multiple design parameters

BASIC: A Bayesian Adaptive Synthetic-Control Design for Phase II Clinical Trials.

Estimating the Sampling Distribution of Posterior Decision Summaries in Bayesian Clinical Trials

A.I.D.S.--a review: its relationship to dentistry.

Sample Size Estimation in Clinical Research

Seamless Phase II/III Design: a Useful Strategy to Reduce the Sample Size for Dose Optimization

Incorporating Historical Information to Improve Phase I Clinical Trials

A Sample Size Planning Approach That Considers Both Statistical Significance and Clinical Significance

Sample size estimation and power analysis for clinical research studies

Sample size re-estimation in a superiority clinical trial using a hybrid classical and Bayesian procedure

Predictive Probabilities Made Simple: A Fast and Accurate Method for Clinical Trial Decision Making

Sample size calculation for clinical trials analyzed with the meta‐analytic‐predictive approach

Conditional Power and Friends: The Why and How of (Un)planned, Unblinded Sample Size Recalculations in Confirmatory Trials

Sample size calculation with simple math for clinical researchers

Sample Size Calculation: Inaccurate A Priori Assumptions for Nuisance Parameters Can Greatly Affect the Power of a Randomized Controlled Trial

The symbolic two-step method applied to cancer care delivery research: Safeguarding against designing an underpowered cluster randomized trial with a continuous outcome by accounting for the imprecision in the within- and between-center variation

A Practical Simulation Method to Calculate Sample Size of Group Sequential Trials for Time-to-Event Data under Exponential and Weibull Distribution

Sample size estimation for cancer randomized trials in the presence of heterogeneous populations

On sample size calculation based on odds ratio in clinical trials.

Adapting power calculations to include a superiority margin: what are the implications?