Cited by 92Statistical Methods in Clinical TrialsStatistical Methods and Bayesian InferenceOptimal Experimental Design Methods

Sample size formulae for trials comparing group and individual treatments in a multilevel model

Moerbeek, Mirjam, Wong, Weng Kee·2008·Statistics in Medicine

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

Crossref · 10.1002/sim.3115

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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