Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 604

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Size is everything – large amounts of information are needed to overcome random effects in estimating direction and magnitude of treatment effects

Moore, A R., Gavaghan, David, Tramèr, R M., Collins, L S., McQuay, J H.·1998·Pain
DOI 10.1016/s0304-3959(98)00140-7
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Variability in patients' response to interventions in pain and other clinical settings is large. Many explanations such as trial methods, environment or culture have been proposed, but this paper sets out to show that the main cause of the variability may be random chance, and that if trials are small their estimate of magnitude of effect may be incorrect, simply because of the random play of chance. This is highly relevant to the questions of 'How large do trials have to be for statistical accuracy?' and 'How large do trials have to be for their results to be clinically valid?' The true underlying control event rate (CER) and experimental event rate (EER) were determined from single-dose acute pain analgesic trials in over 5000 patients. Trial group size required to obtain statistically significant and clinically relevant (0.95 probability of number-needed-to-treat within -/+0.5 of its true value) results were computed using these values. Ten thousand trials using these CER and EER values were simulated using varying group sizes to investigate the variation due to random chance alone. Most common analgesics have EERs in the range 0.4-0.6 and CER of about 0.19. With such efficacy, to have a 90% chance of obtaining a statistically significant result in the correct direction requires group sizes in the range 30-60. For clinical relevance nearly 500 patients are required in each group. Only with an extremely effective drug (EER > 0.8) will we be reasonably sure of obtaining a clinically relevant NNT with commonly used group sizes of around 40 patients per treatment arm. The simulated trials showed substantial variation in CER and EER, with the probability of obtaining the correct values improving as group size increased. We contend that much of the variability in control and experimental event rates is due to random chance alone. Single small trials are unlikely to be correct. If we want to be sure of getting correct (clinically relevant) results in clinical trials we must study more patients. Credible estimates of clinical efficacy are only likely to come from large trials or from pooling multiple trials of conventional (small) size.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s0304-3959(98)00140-7

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 3 references

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Moore, A. R., Gavaghan, D., Tramèr, R. M., Collins, L. S., & McQuay, J. H.
Venue
Pain
Publisher
Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
Published
1998-12-01
Volume
78
Issue
3
Pages
209-216
ISSN
0304-3959 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/s0304-3959(98)00140-7
OpenAlex
W2038075430
Cited by
604
References
3
FWCI
16.65
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.