The DOI matches its Crossref record; 30 of the 31 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
DELTA2 guidance on choosing the target difference and undertaking and reporting the sample size calculation for a randomised controlled trial
Open accessAbstract
A key step in the design of a RCT is the estimation of the number of participants needed in the study. The most common approach is to specify a target difference between the treatments for the primary outcome and then calculate the required sample size. The sample size is chosen to ensure that the trial will have a high probability (adequate statistical power) of detecting a target difference between the treatments should one exist. The sample size has many implications for the conduct and interpretation of the study. Despite the critical role that the target difference has in the design of a RCT, the way in which it is determined has received little attention. In this article, we summarise the key considerations and messages from new guidance for researchers and funders on specifying the target difference, and undertaking and reporting a RCT sample size calculation. This article on choosing the target difference for a randomised controlled trial (RCT) and undertaking and reporting the sample size calculation has been dual published in the BMJ and BMC Trials journals The DELTA 2 (Difference ELicitation in TriAls) project comprised five major components: systematic literature reviews of recent methodological developments (stage 1) and existing funder guidance (stage 2); a Delphi study (stage 3); a two-day consensus meeting bringing together researchers, funders and patient representatives (stage 4); and the preparation and dissemination of a guidance document (stage 5). The key messages from the DELTA 2 guidance on determining the target difference and sample size calculation for a randomised caontrolled trial are presented. Recommendations for the subsequent reporting of the sample size calculation are also provided.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Figures
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.
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 cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“the DELTA (Difference Elicitation in TriAls) project proposes that the primary outcome should be of relevance to at least one key stakeholder group [61]”
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
The Revised CONSORT Statement for Reporting Randomized Trials: Explanation and Elaboration
Altman, D. G., Schulz, K. F., Moher, D., Egger, M., Davidoff, F., Elbourne, D., Gøtzsche, P. C., Lang, T., & for the CONSORT Group (2001) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-134-8-200104170-00012 · Cited by 3,835
Self-citationWhat is meant by intention to treat analysis? Survey of published randomised controlled trials
Hollis, S., & Campbell, F. (1999) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.319.7211.670 · Cited by 2,160
Bayesian Approaches to Clinical Trials and Health‐Care Evaluation
Spiegelhalter, D. J., Abrams, K. R., & Myles, J. P. (2003) · Wiley eBooks · doi:10.1002/0470092602 · Cited by 1,687
Understanding the minimum clinically important difference: A review of concepts and methods
Copay, A. G., Subach, B. R., Glassman, S. D., Polly, D. W., & Schuler, T. C. (2007) · The Spine Journal · doi:10.1016/j.spinee.2007.01.008 · Cited by 1,662
National Institute for Health Research
Evans, R. G. (2014) · Nursing Standard · doi:10.7748/ns.28.49.32.s37 · Cited by 1,350
White, P., Goldsmith, K., Johnson, A., Potts, L., Walwyn, R., DeCesare, J., Baber, H., Burgess, M., Clark, L., Cox, D., et al. (2011) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(11)60096-2 · Cited by 897
Claxton, K. (1999) · Journal of Health Economics · doi:10.1016/s0167-6296(98)00039-3 · Cited by 891
Goodman, S. N., & Berlin, J. A. (1994) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-121-3-199408010-00008 · Cited by 658
Self-citationSample size calculations in randomised trials: mandatory and mystical
Schulz, K. F., & Grimes, D. A. (2005) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(05)61034-3 · Cited by 549
Beaton, D., Boers, M., & Wells, G. (2002) · Current Opinion in Rheumatology · doi:10.1097/00002281-200203000-00006 · Cited by 547
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- Sones W. et al., Choosing the target difference (“effect size”) for a randomised controlled trial – the development of the DELTA2 guidance Trials. 2018;19:542.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Skivington, K., Matthews, L., Simpson, S. A., Craig, P., Baird, J., Blazeby, J. M., Boyd, K., Craig, N. J., French, D., McIntosh, E., et al. (2021) · Health Technology Assessment · doi:10.3310/hta25570 · Cited by 585
Velocity-Based Training: From Theory to Application
Weakley, J. J. S., Mann, B., Banyard, H. G., McLaren, S. J., Scott, T. J., & García‐Ramos, A. (2020) · Strength and conditioning journal · doi:10.1519/ssc.0000000000000560 · Cited by 469
The Handbook of Behavior Change
Hagger, M. S., Cameron, L. D., Hamilton, K., Hankonen, N. E., & Lintunen, T. (2020) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781108677318 · Cited by 446
Changing Behavior Using the Theory of Planned Behavior
Ajzen, I., & Schmidt, P. (2020) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781108677318.002 · Cited by 346
Mansournia, M. A., Collins, P. G. S., Nielsen, R. O., Nazemipour, M., Jewell, N. P., Altman, D. G., & Campbell, M. J. (2021) · British Journal of Sports Medicine · doi:10.1136/bjsports-2020-103652 · Cited by 268
Self-citation
Metadata
- 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
- Trials
- Published
- 2018-11-05
- Volume
- 19
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 606-606
- ISSN
- 1745-6215 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC6218987
- OpenAlex
- W2899988464
- Cited by
- 197
- References
- 31
- Citations by year
- 2026: 5 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 24 · 2021: 28 · 2020: 78 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 4
- FWCI
- 25.73
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Trials (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- White Rose Research Online (University of Leeds, The University of Sheffield, University of York) (acceptedVersion)
- UEA Digital Repository (University of East Anglia) (acceptedVersion)
- Warwick Research Archive Portal (University of Warwick) (acceptedVersion)
- ePrints Soton (University of Southampton) (acceptedVersion)
- LSHTM Research Online (London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine) (acceptedVersion)
- Aberdeen University Research Archive (Aberdeen University) (submittedVersion)
- uO Research (University of Ottawa) (submittedVersion, public-domain)
- Apollo (University of Cambridge) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Lancaster EPrints (Lancaster University) (submittedVersion)
- UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
- Research Portal (King's College London) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Spiral (Imperial College London) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Warwick Research Archive Portal (University of Warwick) (submittedVersion)
- Apollo
- Apollo (cc-by)
- Funders
- Medical Research Council (N/A)
- National Institute for Health Research (N/A)
- 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, primary outcomes, reporting guidelines, research funding, trial design
- MeSH terms
- Delphi Technique, Humans, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Guidelines as Topic, Sample Size, Research Report, 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
