DELTA2 guidance on choosing the target difference and undertaking and reporting the sample size calculation for a randomised controlled trial
Open accessAbstract
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
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.
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?
The sample size calculation is a key component in the design of a randomised trial.
“The sample size calculation is a key component in the design of a randomised trial.290 291”
From SPIRIT 2025 explanation and elaboration: updated guideline for protocols of randomised trials (2025) · cites this paper as [291]
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
- [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
- ORCID
- Venue
- BMJ
- Publisher
- BMJ
- Published
- 2018-11-05
- Volume
- 363
- Pages
- k3750
- ISSN
- 1756-1833 (ISSN-L)
- 0959-8138
- PMC
- PMC6216070
- 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
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- 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