Cited by 63Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsStatistical Methods in Clinical TrialsStatistical Methods in Epidemiology

Empirical assessment suggests that existing evidence could be used more fully in designing randomized controlled trials

Goudie, Alison C., Sutton, Alexander J., Jones, David R., Donald, Alison·2010·Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

Abstract

Background Meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) provide the highest level of evidence regarding the effectiveness of interventions. Less is known about how they are used to inform the design and reporting of RCTs.Methods A sample of RCTs published in leading medical journals in 2007 was assessed to establish whether authors considered previous trials in the design of their trial. An approach to calculate the sample size required for a significant pooled effect in an updated meta-analysis was applied to a subsample of the RCTs to illustrate the ways in which the results of an existing meta-analysis can be incorporated into the planning and reporting of new RCTs.Results Six of the 27 trials assessed (22%) reported the use of previous trial(s) for sample size calculations. Meta-analyses relating the results of the trial to previous research were cited in 37% (10 out of 27) of the report discussion sections. Previous evidence is formally incorporated into retrospective sample size calculations for three of the trials.Discussion/conclusion Consulting previous research before embarking on a new trial and basing decisions about future research on the impact on an updated meta-analysis will make the reporting of research more coherent and the design of new RCTs more efficient.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.01.022

Cites

24 of 24 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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?

  • Evidence from systematic review can help researchers optimise usefulness of new trial by informing design aspects such as outcome definition and sample size.

    “This evidence can also help researchers to optimise the usefulness of the new trial by informing design aspects such as outcome definition and sample size.143 144 145”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Goudie, A. C., Sutton, A. J., Jones, D. R., & Donald, A.
Affiliations
University of Leicester (GB)
Venue
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2010-09
Volume
63
Issue
9
Pages
983-991
ISSN
0895-4356 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2171634280
Cited by
63
References
24
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 1 · 2022: 17 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 2
FWCI
2.66
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Clinical Epidemiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Leicester Research Archive (University of Leicester) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Epidemiology
Keywords
randomized controlled trials, meta-analysis, trial design, sample size determination, trial reporting, research planning, evidence synthesis
MeSH terms
Humans, Medical Informatics Applications, Research Design, Meta-Analysis as Topic, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Sample Size, Evidence-Based Medicine

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