Cited by 148Statistical Methods in Clinical TrialsMeta-analysis and systematic reviewsStatistical Methods in Epidemiology

DELTA2 guidance on choosing the target difference and undertaking and reporting the sample size calculation for a randomised controlled trial

Open access
Cook, Jonathan A, Julious, Steven A, Sones, William, Hampson, Lisa V, Hewitt, Catherine, Berlin, Jesse A, Ashby, Deborah, Emsley, Richard +13 more·2018·BMJ

Abstract

Randomised controlled trials are considered to be the best method to assess comparative clinical efficacy and effectiveness, and can be a key source of data for estimating cost effectiveness. Central to the design of a randomised controlled trial is an a priori sample size calculation, which ensures that the study has a high probability of achieving its prespecified main objective. Beyond pure statistical or scientific concerns, it is ethically imperative that an appropriate number of study participants be recruited, to avoid imposing the burdens of a clinical trial on more patients than necessary. The scientific concern is satisfied and the ethical imperative is further addressed by the specification of a target difference between treatments that is considered realistic or important by one or more key stakeholder groups. The sample size calculation ensures that the trial will have the required statistical power to identify whether a difference of a particular magnitude exists. In this article, the key messages from the DELTA2 guidance on determining the target difference and sample size calculation for a randomised controlled trial are presented. Recommendations for the subsequent reporting of the sample size calculation are also provided.

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 · 10.1136/bmj.k3750

Cites

Statistics

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

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?

Self-check

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

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

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 32 · Cited by 148

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [10]Committee for Human Medicinal Products. ICH E9 (R1) addendum on estimands and sensitivity analysis in clinical trials to the guideline on statistical principles for clinical trials EMA/CHMP/ICH/436221/2017, 2017:1-23. https://www.ema.europa.eu/documents/scientific-guideline/draft-ich-e9-r1-addendum-estimands-sensitivity-analysis-clinical-trials-guideline-statistical_en.pdf.

Authors
Cook, J. A., Julious, S. A., Sones, W., Hampson, L. V., Hewitt, C., Berlin, J. A., Ashby, D., Emsley, R., Fergusson, D. A., Walters, S. J., Wilson, E. C. F., MacLennan, G., Stallard, N., Rothwell, J. C., Bland, M., Brown, L., Ramsay, C. R., Cook, A., Armstrong, D., Altman, D., & Vale, L. D.
Affiliations
  • Nuffield Orthopaedic Centre (GB)
  • University of Sheffield (GB)
  • Novartis (Switzerland) (CH)
  • University of York (GB)
  • Johnson & Johnson (United States) (US)
  • Imperial College London (GB)
  • King's College London (GB)
  • Ottawa Hospital Research Institute (CA)
  • University of Aberdeen (GB)
  • University of Warwick (GB)
  • MRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL (GB)
  • University of Southampton (GB)
  • Newcastle University (GB)
Corresponding author
Cook, Jonathan A
Venue
BMJ
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2018-11-05
Volume
363
Pages
k3750
ISSN
  • 1756-1833 (ISSN-L)
  • 0959-8138
OpenAlex
W2995826184
Cited by
148
References
32
Citations by year
2026: 17 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 21 · 2021: 21 · 2020: 31 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 3
FWCI
13.90
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • BMJ (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Portal (King's College London) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • UEA Digital Repository (University of East Anglia) (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
  • Warwick Research Archive Portal (University of Warwick) (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
  • ePrints Soton (University of Southampton) (acceptedVersion)
  • Aberdeen University Research Archive (Aberdeen University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
  • Warwick Research Archive Portal (University of Warwick) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Scottish Government
  • National Institute for Health and Care Research
  • University of Aberdeen
  • Chief Scientist Office, Scottish Government Health and Social Care Directorate
  • Medical Research Council (MC_PC_16101, MC_UU_12023/29)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Epidemiology
Keywords
sample size determination, randomized controlled trials, statistical power, trial design, reporting guidelines, cost-effectiveness, stakeholder feedback
MeSH terms
Humans, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Guidelines as Topic, Patient Selection, Numbers Needed To Treat

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