Statistical power of clinical trials increased while effect size remained stable: an empirical analysis of 136,212 clinical trials between 1975 and 2014

Herm J. Lamberink, Willem M. Otte, Michel R.T. Sinke, Daniël Lakens, Paul P. Glasziou, Joeri K. Tijdink, Christiaan H. Vinkers

Onderzoeksoutput: Bijdrage aan tijdschriftTijdschriftartikelAcademicpeer review

Uittreksel

Objectives: To study the statistical power of randomized clinical trials and examine developments over time. Study Design and Setting: We analyzed the statistical power in 136,212 clinical trials between 1975 and 2014 extracted from meta-analyses from the Cochrane database of systematic reviews. We determined study power to detect standardized effect sizes, where power was based on the meta-analyzed effect size. Average power, effect size, and temporal patterns were examined for all meta-analyses and a subset of significant meta-analyses. Results: The number of trials with power ≥80% was low (7%) but increased over time: from 5% in 1975–1979 to 9% in 2010–2014. In significant meta-analyses, the proportion of trials with sufficient power increased from 9% to 15% in these years (median power increased from 16% to 23%). This increase was mainly due to increasing sample sizes, while effect sizes remained stable with a median Cohen's h of 0.09 (interquartile range 0.04–0.22) and a median Cohen's d of 0.20 (0.11–0.40). Conclusion: This study demonstrates that sufficient power in clinical trials is still problematic, although the situation is slowly improving. Our data encourage further efforts to increase statistical power in clinical trials to guarantee rigorous and reproducible evidence-based medicine.

TaalEngels
Pagina's123-128
Aantal pagina's6
TijdschriftJournal of Clinical Epidemiology
Volume102
DOI's
StatusGepubliceerd - 1 okt 2018

Vingerafdruk

Meta-Analysis
Clinical Trials
Evidence-Based Medicine
Sample Size
Randomized Controlled Trials
Databases

Trefwoorden

    Citeer dit

    Lamberink, Herm J. ; Otte, Willem M. ; Sinke, Michel R.T. ; Lakens, Daniël ; Glasziou, Paul P. ; Tijdink, Joeri K. ; Vinkers, Christiaan H./ Statistical power of clinical trials increased while effect size remained stable : an empirical analysis of 136,212 clinical trials between 1975 and 2014. In: Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 2018 ; Vol. 102. blz. 123-128
    @article{1bd1e058de5b4f84b15e0a8d24e49264,
    title = "Statistical power of clinical trials increased while effect size remained stable: an empirical analysis of 136,212 clinical trials between 1975 and 2014",
    abstract = "Objectives: To study the statistical power of randomized clinical trials and examine developments over time. Study Design and Setting: We analyzed the statistical power in 136,212 clinical trials between 1975 and 2014 extracted from meta-analyses from the Cochrane database of systematic reviews. We determined study power to detect standardized effect sizes, where power was based on the meta-analyzed effect size. Average power, effect size, and temporal patterns were examined for all meta-analyses and a subset of significant meta-analyses. Results: The number of trials with power ≥80{\%} was low (7{\%}) but increased over time: from 5{\%} in 1975–1979 to 9{\%} in 2010–2014. In significant meta-analyses, the proportion of trials with sufficient power increased from 9{\%} to 15{\%} in these years (median power increased from 16{\%} to 23{\%}). This increase was mainly due to increasing sample sizes, while effect sizes remained stable with a median Cohen's h of 0.09 (interquartile range 0.04–0.22) and a median Cohen's d of 0.20 (0.11–0.40). Conclusion: This study demonstrates that sufficient power in clinical trials is still problematic, although the situation is slowly improving. Our data encourage further efforts to increase statistical power in clinical trials to guarantee rigorous and reproducible evidence-based medicine.",
    keywords = "Clinical trial, Randomized, Statistical power",
    author = "Lamberink, {Herm J.} and Otte, {Willem M.} and Sinke, {Michel R.T.} and Dani{\"e}l Lakens and Glasziou, {Paul P.} and Tijdink, {Joeri K.} and Vinkers, {Christiaan H.}",
    year = "2018",
    month = "10",
    day = "1",
    doi = "10.1016/j.jclinepi.2018.06.014",
    language = "English",
    volume = "102",
    pages = "123--128",
    journal = "Journal of Clinical Epidemiology",
    issn = "0895-4356",
    publisher = "Elsevier",

    }

    Statistical power of clinical trials increased while effect size remained stable : an empirical analysis of 136,212 clinical trials between 1975 and 2014. / Lamberink, Herm J.; Otte, Willem M.; Sinke, Michel R.T.; Lakens, Daniël; Glasziou, Paul P.; Tijdink, Joeri K.; Vinkers, Christiaan H.

    In: Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, Vol. 102, 01.10.2018, blz. 123-128.

    Onderzoeksoutput: Bijdrage aan tijdschriftTijdschriftartikelAcademicpeer review

    TY - JOUR

    T1 - Statistical power of clinical trials increased while effect size remained stable

    T2 - Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

    AU - Lamberink,Herm J.

    AU - Otte,Willem M.

    AU - Sinke,Michel R.T.

    AU - Lakens,Daniël

    AU - Glasziou,Paul P.

    AU - Tijdink,Joeri K.

    AU - Vinkers,Christiaan H.

    PY - 2018/10/1

    Y1 - 2018/10/1

    N2 - Objectives: To study the statistical power of randomized clinical trials and examine developments over time. Study Design and Setting: We analyzed the statistical power in 136,212 clinical trials between 1975 and 2014 extracted from meta-analyses from the Cochrane database of systematic reviews. We determined study power to detect standardized effect sizes, where power was based on the meta-analyzed effect size. Average power, effect size, and temporal patterns were examined for all meta-analyses and a subset of significant meta-analyses. Results: The number of trials with power ≥80% was low (7%) but increased over time: from 5% in 1975–1979 to 9% in 2010–2014. In significant meta-analyses, the proportion of trials with sufficient power increased from 9% to 15% in these years (median power increased from 16% to 23%). This increase was mainly due to increasing sample sizes, while effect sizes remained stable with a median Cohen's h of 0.09 (interquartile range 0.04–0.22) and a median Cohen's d of 0.20 (0.11–0.40). Conclusion: This study demonstrates that sufficient power in clinical trials is still problematic, although the situation is slowly improving. Our data encourage further efforts to increase statistical power in clinical trials to guarantee rigorous and reproducible evidence-based medicine.

    AB - Objectives: To study the statistical power of randomized clinical trials and examine developments over time. Study Design and Setting: We analyzed the statistical power in 136,212 clinical trials between 1975 and 2014 extracted from meta-analyses from the Cochrane database of systematic reviews. We determined study power to detect standardized effect sizes, where power was based on the meta-analyzed effect size. Average power, effect size, and temporal patterns were examined for all meta-analyses and a subset of significant meta-analyses. Results: The number of trials with power ≥80% was low (7%) but increased over time: from 5% in 1975–1979 to 9% in 2010–2014. In significant meta-analyses, the proportion of trials with sufficient power increased from 9% to 15% in these years (median power increased from 16% to 23%). This increase was mainly due to increasing sample sizes, while effect sizes remained stable with a median Cohen's h of 0.09 (interquartile range 0.04–0.22) and a median Cohen's d of 0.20 (0.11–0.40). Conclusion: This study demonstrates that sufficient power in clinical trials is still problematic, although the situation is slowly improving. Our data encourage further efforts to increase statistical power in clinical trials to guarantee rigorous and reproducible evidence-based medicine.

    KW - Clinical trial

    KW - Randomized

    KW - Statistical power

    UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85050569494&partnerID=8YFLogxK

    U2 - 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2018.06.014

    DO - 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2018.06.014

    M3 - Article

    VL - 102

    SP - 123

    EP - 128

    JO - Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

    JF - Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

    SN - 0895-4356

    ER -