Sufficient trial size to inform clinical practice

Medical research has evolved conventions for choosing sample size in randomized clinical trials that rest on the theory of hypothesis testing. Bayesian statisticians have argued that trials should be designed to maximize subjective expected utility in settings of clinical interest. This perspective...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences - PNAS Vol. 113; no. 38; pp. 10518 - 10523
Main Authors Manski, Charles F., Tetenov, Aleksey
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published United States National Academy of Sciences 20.09.2016
Subjects
Online AccessGet full text
ISSN0027-8424
1091-6490
1091-6490
DOI10.1073/pnas.1612174113

Cover

Loading…
More Information
Summary:Medical research has evolved conventions for choosing sample size in randomized clinical trials that rest on the theory of hypothesis testing. Bayesian statisticians have argued that trials should be designed to maximize subjective expected utility in settings of clinical interest. This perspective is compelling given a credible prior distribution on treatment response, but there is rarely consensus on what the subjective prior beliefs should be. We use Wald’s frequentist statistical decision theory to study design of trials under ambiguity. We show that ε-optimal rules exist when trials have large enough sample size. An ε-optimal rule has expected welfare within ε of the welfare of the best treatment in every state of nature. Equivalently, it has maximum regret no larger than ε. We consider trials that draw predetermined numbers of subjects at random within groups stratified by covariates and treatments. We report exact results for the special case of two treatments and binary outcomes. We give simple sufficient conditions on sample sizes that ensure existence of ε-optimal treatment rules when there are multiple treatments and outcomes are bounded. These conditions are obtained by application of Hoeffding large deviations inequalities to evaluate the performance of empirical success rules.
Bibliography:SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-1
content type line 14
ObjectType-Article-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
content type line 23
Author contributions: C.F.M. and A.T. designed research, performed research, analyzed data, and wrote the paper.
Contributed by Charles F. Manski, July 23, 2016 (sent for review May 20, 2016; reviewed by Keisuke Hirano and David Meltzer)
Reviewers: K.H., University of Arizona; and D.M., University of Chicago.
ISSN:0027-8424
1091-6490
1091-6490
DOI:10.1073/pnas.1612174113