Sample size formulae for trials comparing group and individual treatments in a multilevel model
Abstract
In disease screening and prevention trials, subjects in the experimental condition are frequently nested within therapy groups, whereas subjects in the control group receive individual or no therapy and are therefore not nested within groups. Outcomes of subjects within the same therapy group are expected to be more alike than outcomes of subjects within different therapy groups. Ignoring this dependency in the design stage may result in less powerful designs. This paper presents a multilevel model for analyzing such trials and sample size formulae for continuous and binary outcomes with unequal variances and costs across groups. The proposed optimal design ensures that there is adequate power to detect a treatment effect with either minimal cost or a minimal number of subjects. We apply our strategy and design an improved trial where all subjects with musculoskeletal pain received conventional therapy and subjects in the intervention arm participated in a group‐learning program. Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
To detect a between-group difference of 2.0 with SD 6.9 (standardised mean difference 0.29), assuming the ratio of total variance in the self-management group to the relaxation therapy is 1, at two-sided 5% significance and at least 90% power, the required sample size is 523 participants (253 in the relaxation group and 270 in the self-management group).
“To detect a between-group difference of 2.0 with SD of 6.9 (a standardised mean difference of 0.29) and assuming that the ratio of the total variance in the self-management group to the relaxation therapy is 1 at the two-sided 5% significance level and at least 90% power, the sample size required is 523 participants (253 in the relaxation group and 270 in the self-management group).”
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 41 · Cited by 92
- Authors
- Moerbeek, M., & Wong, W. K.
- Affiliations
- Utrecht University (NL)
- University of California, Los Angeles (US)
- Corresponding author
- Moerbeek, Mirjam
- Venue
- Statistics in Medicine
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2007-10-24
- Volume
- 27
- Issue
- 15
- Pages
- 2850-2864
- ISSN
- 0277-6715 (ISSN-L)
- 1097-0258
- OpenAlex
- W2144018745
- Cited by
- 92
- References
- 41
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 3
- FWCI
- 1.57
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Statistics in Medicine (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Utrecht University Repository (Utrecht University) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- National Cancer Institute (R01CA102486)
- National Institute of General Medical Sciences (R01GM072876)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods and Bayesian Inference
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Optimal Experimental Design Methods
- Keywords
- multilevel models, statistical power, heteroscedasticity, continuous outcomes, binary outcomes, musculoskeletal pain
- MeSH terms
- Absenteeism, Bayes Theorem, Clinical Trials as Topic, Humans, Norway, Psychotherapy, Group, Models, Statistical, Treatment Outcome, Sample Size, Pain Management
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review