Advertisement

Sample Size Estimation when Comparing More than Two Treatment Groups

  • Alan PhillipsEmail author
Article

Abstract

A large amount of literature has been published on methods for determining sample size and power for clinical trials. Although formulae exist to determine sample size for different designs, in practice the methods are rarely used. Instead, sample size estimates are usually based on simple formulae derived for the comparison of two means or binomial proportions.

This paper describes some useful theory for sample size estimation when comparing more than two treatment groups. Where the theory is not applicable, it is demonstrated that simulation can be used as an alternative approach.

Key Words

Sample size Analysis of variance Dose-response Simulation 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Armitage P, Berry G. Statistical methods in medical research. 2nd ed. Oxford: Blackwell; 1987:182.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bland JM. An introduction to medical statistics. Oxford: Oxford Medical Publications; 1987:160.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Fleiss JL. The design and analysis of clinical experiments. Chichester: Wiley; 1986:371–376.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Frison L, Pocock SJ. Repeated measures in clinical trials: Analysis using mean summary statistics and its implications for design. Stat Med. 1992;11:1685–1704.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Pocock SJ. Clinical Trials. Chichester: Wiley; 1983:128–229.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Montgomery SA, Asberg M. A new depression rating scale designed to be sensitive to change. Br J Psychiatry. 1979;134:382–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lindley DV, Scott WF. New Cambridge Elementary Statistical Tables. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1984.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Banner NR, Lloyd HM, Hamilton RD, Innes JA, Guz A, Yacoub MH. Cardiopulmonary response to dynamic exercise after heart and combined heart-lung transplanatation. Br Heart J. 1989;61:215–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lucki I, Rickeis K, Gesecke MA, Geller A. Differential effects of the anxiolytic drugs, diazepam and buspirone, on memory function. Br J Clin Pharacol. 1987;23:207–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Rowbotham DJ, Nimmo WS. Effects of cisapride on morphine-induced delay in gastric emptying. Br J Anaesth. 1987;59:536–539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Tatsuta M, Isihi H, Yamamura H, Yamamoto R, Taniguchi H. Enhancement by tetragastrin of experimental induction of gastric epithelium in the duodenum. Gut. 1989;30:311–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Laubscher NF. Normalizing the noncentral t and F distributions. Ann Math Stat. 1960;31:1105–1112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. New York: Academic Press; 1977.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ruberg SJ. Dose response studies. Some design considerations. J Biopharma Stat. 1995;5:1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ruberg SJ. Dose response studies. Analysis and interpretation. J Biopharma Stat. 1995;5:15–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Abelson RP, Tukey JW. Efficient utilisation of non-numerical information in quantitative analysis: General theory and the case of simple order. Ann Math Stat. 1963;34:1347–1369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Yateman N, Skene A. The use of simulation in the design of two cardiovascular survival studies. Stat Med. 1993;12:1365–1372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Drug Information Association, Inc 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Huntercombe Lane South, TaplowWyeth Research (UK)BerkshireUK

Personalised recommendations