Sample sizes for cancer trials where Health Related Quality of Life is the primary outcome

被引:13
作者
Julious, SA
Campbell, MJ
Walker, SJ
George, SL
Machin, D
机构
[1] SmithKline Beecham, Clin Pharmacol Stat, Harlow CM19 5AW, Essex, England
[2] Univ Sheffield, No Gen Hosp, Inst Gen Practice & Primary Care, Community Sci Ctr, Sheffield S5 7AU, S Yorkshire, England
[3] Univ Southampton, Southampton Gen Hosp, Dept Med Stat & Comp, Southampton SO16 6YD, Hants, England
[4] Univ Southampton, Southampton Gen Hosp, Hlth Care Res Unit, Southampton SO16 6YD, Hants, England
关键词
Health Related Quality of Life; cancer; samples size; effect size;
D O I
10.1054/bjoc.2000.1383
中图分类号
R73 [肿瘤学];
学科分类号
100214 ;
摘要
Health Related Quality of Life (HRQoL) instruments are increasingly important in evaluating health care, especially in cancer trials. When planning a trial, one essential step is the calculation of a sample size, which will allow a reasonable chance (power) of detecting a pre-specified difference (effect size) at a given level of statistical significance. It is almost mandatory to include this calculation in research protocols. Many researchers quote means and standard deviations to determine effect sizes, and assume the data will have a Normal distribution to calculate their required sample size. We have investigated the distribution of scores for two commonly used HRQoL instruments completed by lung cancer patients, and have established that scores do not have the Normal distribution form. We demonstrate that an assumption of Normality can lead to unrealistically sized studies. Our recommendation is to use a technique that is based on the fact that the HRQoL data are ordinal and makes minimal but realistic assumptions. (C) 2000 Cancer Research Campaign.
引用
收藏
页码:959 / 963
页数:5
相关论文
共 15 条
[1]   Randomised trial of four-drug vs less intensive two-drug chemotherapy in the palliative treatment of patients with small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) and poor prognosis [J].
Bleehen, NM ;
Girling, DJ ;
Hopwood, P ;
Lallemand, G ;
Machin, D ;
Stephens, RJ ;
Bailey, AJ .
BRITISH JOURNAL OF CANCER, 1996, 73 (03) :406-413
[2]   ESTIMATING SAMPLE SIZES FOR BINARY, ORDERED CATEGORICAL, AND CONTINUOUS OUTCOMES IN 2 GROUP COMPARISONS [J].
CAMPBELL, MJ ;
JULIOUS, SA ;
ALTMAN, DG .
BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 1995, 311 (7013) :1145-1148
[3]  
Campbell MJ, 1996, J EPIDEMIOL COMMUN H, V50, P473
[4]  
CAMPBELL MJ, 2000, ADV HDB EVIDENCE BAS
[5]   THE QUALITY OF LIFE OF CANCER-PATIENTS - A REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE [J].
DEHAES, JCJM ;
VANKNIPPENBERG, FCE .
SOCIAL SCIENCE & MEDICINE, 1985, 20 (08) :809-817
[6]   MEASURING PSYCHOLOGICAL AND PHYSICAL DISTRESS IN CANCER-PATIENTS - STRUCTURE AND APPLICATION OF THE ROTTERDAM-SYMPTOM-CHECKLIST [J].
DEHAES, JCJM ;
VANKNIPPENBERG, FCE ;
NEIJT, JP .
BRITISH JOURNAL OF CANCER, 1990, 62 (06) :1034-1038
[7]  
Fayers P. M., 2008, QUALITY LIFE ASSESSM, DOI 10.1111/j.1541-0420.2008.01082_11.x
[8]   SAMPLE-SIZE - HOW MANY PATIENTS ARE NECESSARY [J].
FAYERS, PM ;
MACHIN, D .
BRITISH JOURNAL OF CANCER, 1995, 72 (01) :1-9
[9]  
Julious SA, 1997, QUAL LIFE RES, V6, P109
[10]   Sample sizes for studies using the short form 36 (SF-36) [J].
Julious, SA ;
George, S ;
Campbell, MJ .
JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY AND COMMUNITY HEALTH, 1995, 49 (06) :642-644