Science topic

# Randomized Control Trials - Science topic

Explore the latest questions and answers in Randomized Control Trials, and find Randomized Control Trials experts.

Questions related to Randomized Control Trials

Hi, I would like to calculate the sample size for a 3 armed randomised control trial to study the effect of a particular intervention in a clinical population. The primary outcome is a continuous variable and the effect size is of 0.34 (obtained froma recent meta-analysis). I will have pre- and post- measures for participants in each of the three study arms. Could someone kindly guide me with this sample size calculation please?

I understand meta-analysis of RCTs has a level I evidence and case control studies have a level III. But what is the level of evidence from meta-analysis of well-conducted case-control studies; is it I or III or otherwise? Many thanks

I am having trouble with interpretation of a prospective superiority randomised controlled trial. Study characteristics:

Study design:

- Alpha value = 0.05
- 1-beta = 0.8
- Predicted effect size =0.15 [P1 = 0.65, P2 = 0.5]
- Numbers needed = 492

Observed results:

- Effect size = 0.09 [P1 = 0.50, P2 = 0.41]
- Numbers enrolled = 502
- statistically significant P value -> P = 0.03
- null hypothesis is rejected.

My impression is that the trial underestimated the effect size. If I use the observed results to calculate a sample size that would take into the effect size (same alpha and beta), I get a numbers needed of 900+ patients. This would suggest that the trial is actually under powered. And potentially, the result we see is a false positive result.

What is the relevance of superiority margin/ clinically meaningful margin / least relevant margin in randomized control trial for sample size calculation?

I am doing my first systematic review. I have included two different study types; cohort studies and RCTs.

Regarding the quality assessment. What is the best thing to do?

Should i assess the cohorts using e.g. the Newcastle-Ottawa scale and the RCTs using e.g. Cochrane risk-of-bias?

Or is there a combined quality assessment tool for use in these cases where different study types are included?

Is there any gold standard for this?

Thanks in advance

Falls prevention in ver 2 years: a randomized controlled trial in 80 years older women

has what kind of sampling?

purposive?

Blinding is done in RCT to minimize biases. Is it mandatory to do Blinding in RCT?

I am conducting a systematic review about a newly developed psychological intervention for children, but all studies available are of exploratory/feasibility nature and I am not sure how to evaluate/analyse their results.

I am wondering if anyone is aware of guidelines or articles regarding the decision process of going from a pilot/feasibility stage to full RCT?

I am sure this is a relevant question in many departments, deciding if the results from exploratory studies justify going further with expensive RCTs.

I have been looking in to Cochrane Library etc. to see how they evaluate evidence, but what I can find is mostly regarding making clinical guidelines based on evidence availible (RCTs and other sources of evidence).

If anyone knows anything about this process, guidelines for going from exploratory to RCTs, I would be immensely grateful since I feel a bit stuck on this question (how to analyse the results from feasibility/exploratory intervention studies, what criteria can be used for deciding to go ahead or not with RCTs etc..)

I'm currently working on a systematic review including more than 150 studies. However, a large amount of experimental studies haven't reported sufficiently means and SDs for the outcome measures. Is there any alternative way to include them in the meta-analysis?

In one study, a person in each treatment group converted from MCI to dementia. The study eliminated them from the analysis, using them as statistical outliers. I know that the two analysis for RCTs are per protocol and intention to treat. It did not use an ITT analysis. It was a pilot study with a control group. Subjects were randomized. Are there other analyses suitable for this case?

Hi,

Can we conduct network meta-analysis for cohorts and case-control studies or only for RCTs? is there a limit to the number of interventions? and what is the best software that does not need R code?

Thank you

Sometimes, due to limited/very few number of RCTs, researcher needs to combine data with Non-RCTs study for meta-analysis. But, combining dat from both types of studies may increase the heterogeneity and mean difference.

How one can plan data analysis method to combine RCTs and observational studies in the meta-analysis? What model will be used to combine data of RCTs and observational study?

I want to understand the benefits of conducting a quasi-experimental study as opposed to a randomized control trial (which is considered the gold standard) in a population-based/ epidemiological/ or health systems-based research project.

I need published papers about it to include in a Cochrane sistematic review.

I noticed a new trend in recent landmark RCTs that the pharmaceutical company (which is the one sponsoring the trial for the benefit hypothesis of its drug), was involved heavily in data collection, entery& interpretation even the final writing of the article e.g VERIFY trial for Vldagliptin& PIONEER project for Semaglutide& maybe so many others.

My question is about is it enough to be written transparently about that to refute the high possibility of conflict of interrest& till which limit we may accept that?

Hi unfortunetly in my study there are only 2 RCTs published to demonstrate any reliable effect with a surgical procedure on a pathology (osteoarthritis).

The remaining are case series, which measure patient's MEAN outcome scores at 1year, 1-5 years , >5 years. Some don't publish SD. Others publish just median scores. The series all have the same pathology (osteoarthritis), but do not necessarily have the same patient characteristics - typical of case series and units wanting to present their results.

Can I pool these Mean patient outcome scores together at 1 year / 1-5 years / >5 years and calculate the total mean and present them in a forest plot?

Does it statistically make sense or am I comparing apples and oranges? Do I just calculate the average or are there any tests you would recommend?

I understand that is the limitation that this is poor literature and hard to come to a conculsion, but that is the point I am trying to highlight that we can't keep publishing small case series but need large registry data which I will be working on.

I can understand the importance of having an outcome assessor independent and blinded of intervention for a Randomised Controlled Trial (RCT), but when conducting a Case Study investigating a new Clinical Health intervention is it also important to NOT allow the principal researcher to carry out baseline and post-intervention outcome scales/measures?

My understanding is that the principal objective of a Case Study is to establish the feasibility of a new intervention rather than effectiveness and more importantly ensure that the participant does not experience any adverse effects. Because of this, the significance of any non-feasibility scales are minimal so for this reason would it be a poor design for the principal researcher to undertake the outcome scales/measures?

Thank you for your advice regarding this question!

Ken

I'm currently exploring the opportunity of conducting an NMA of observational studies only. very rarely NMA is done using observational studies as the transitivity assumption is unlikely to be fulfilled because these studies will have different protocols, methods of patient selection and settings ..etc.

I'm aware of the methods that are used to incorporate non randomized studies into a network of RCTs and the existence of many approaches for that such as regression adjustment, propensity score matching techniques ..etc. but I'm not sure if those techniques can be implemented in an NMA of observational studies only.

So, do you think that an NMA is applicable in the context of observational studies only? and if so, how can we fulfil the transitivity assumption? can proper statistical tests address that?

Hello! I am working on review comparing cardiorespiratory adverse events b/w Propofol vs. alternative drugs in colonoscopy only. I entered the data from the studies that fit criteria (RCTs,Colonoscopies,Propofol vs. Alternative sedative) into RevMan. Any other statistical tools/programs should I be using for this method of research?

I'm conducting a Risk of Bias Assessment in some RCTs and my effect of interest is that of

**adhering to intervention**. However, some studies have**intention-to-treat analysis only.**Should I exclude these studies from the Assessment or not? In particular, how should I manage "missing outcome data" domain?Good day, I am interested in understanding a research paper that used the maximum likelihood of a generalized linear mixed model to predict the missing data from participants who did not complete an intervention in a randomized control trial.

I am not very familiar with statistical functions, and would like to understand this concept in simple terms to explain to my peers. Any information is appreciated.

My research team is conducting a review using the clinical trials and RCTs. For this I would like to know whether I can use the PICO framework or not.

1.Probability sampling or non probability sampling ?

2.Literarure showed both and more over Consecutive and purposive sampling for similar randomised controlled trial as well.

Hi to those who are familiar with using KMET scoring for methodological quality and publication. How do you go about scoring the KMET when RCTs are not indicated (emerging treatment / ethical issues), particularly items 2, 3, 4, 10? We had some recent reviewer feedback that the scores could not be so strong when they are not RCTs. Just wondering what other's experiences are? Many thanks in advance !

Is it feasible to include a pooled analysis (for example post-hoc of two RCTs) in meta-analysis ?

I conducted a controlled experiment to test the effect of a training intervention on workers. We were allocated 40 workers at the start by an NGO. This allocation was random as the workers were selected randomly from the pool of workers that the NGO knew. After this, we randomly divided the workers equally into two groups - treatment and control (20 and 20) and kept all other variables and conditions same for both, e.g. the regular activities of the workers. We then provided a month-long training on a topic to the workers in the treatment group. To know whether the training had some effect on the knowledge of the workers in the treatment group, we tested the knowledge of both the groups before and after the intervention. We found the two groups to differ in their knowledge at the baseline; the average percentage of the pre-test scores for the treatment group was 34%, and the control group was 28%. The difference was statistically significant (Wilcoxon sum test, p < 0.05). We use the Wilxocon tests as the data was not parametric. I would like to know what could be the potential factors which led to this difference.

I have 2 studies for the same author, intervention and numbers of participants. The author mentioned in the title for the first study the effect of the intervention after 6 months with a specific outcome, and the second study title mentioned the effectiveness after 1 year with a different outcome from the 1st study.

Both studies are RCTs.

I've contacted the author but provided an invalid email address.

Can I consider these study as one study and taking both outcomes from both studies? Or taking each study independently?

Thanks for your cooperatives.

I am trying to figure out the method to use to calculate the sample size for a matched cross-sectional study with 3 arms. Participants will be matched based on their age, geographic area, and number of children they have (0 vs 1). The primary outcome is experience of family violence (0 vs 1) and therefore it is a binary outcome.

Since there are more than two arms, ANOVA applies here (rather than a paired t-test). Since it's matched samples - repeated measures ANOVA seems to be the most relevant to calculate the sample size.

The catch is that the repeated ANOVA sample size calculations require at least two time-measurements, but this study is cross-sectional.

If anybody has any advice on how to calculate the sample size in this case, that would be much appreciated!

Hello everyone, I would like to ask if the way that the sample size of this research was calculated is valid or correct. Is a study to evaluate the effect of gargling with Povidone iodine among COVID-19 patients. The text says “For this pilot study, we looked at Eggers et al. (2015), using Betadine gargle on MERS-CoV which showed a significant reduction of viral titer by a factor of 4.3 log10 TCID50/mL, and we calculated a sample size of 5 per arm or 20 samples in total”. From this data of the reduction of the viral titer in a previous study on MERS-CoV ¿It is valid to calculate the sample size this way for a new study on COVID-19?

Hello dear researchers,

I want to know how should we interpret significant results of a meta-analysis while none of the included RCTs showed a significant difference?

is this because of low number of participants in RCTs? (approx. 20 to 30)

how should we discuss on this issue in our papers?

best,

Parsa

Dear Researchers, can anyone guide me on how can I combine split mouth and parallel design RCTs in the same meta-analysis for continuous outcomes in RevMan software? Which method I will choose?

**Secondly, random effect model (inverse variance) in RevMan is the DerSimonian and Laird method?**

**Thank you in advance.**

For a meta-analysis of interventions composed of only 1 RCT, 5 single-arm (SA) and 5 double-arm observational studies (DA), what is the best way to account for the lack of control arms amongst the SAs? More specifically, is it possible to 'donate' control arms from the RCT / DAs to allow for comparison of data within the recipient SAs?

Some literature proposes matching a control arm from an RCT with an SA (Zhang et al - doi: 10.1016/S1499-3872(12)60209-4), however, I'm unsure if this method adjusts for inherent differences in selection bias between the two designs. Please help?

I would be incredibly grateful for any advice, thank you!

Hello Everyone

Wanted to know about the most common Randomized Controlled Trails used in Occupational Settings. What is the rationale for preference of such RCTs.

Thank you

Hi

I am performing a systematic review. However, my topic has a limited number of RCTs. Thus, I was advised to add animal studies as well as other types of study designs (non-randomised, uncontrolled single-arm studies). Would that be an appropriate approach?

Please share your thoughts as well.

Many thanks

I will have a 2X3 (pretest-posttest-follow up X experimental-control groups) split plot experimental design study, which is an RCT trying to test the effect of a group intervention on various variables. I want to see whether potential mediator variables say, a and b have mediated the effect of the intervention on the variable c. I will measure the potential mediators with the outcome for the three assessments. Does this design make sense and what kind of statistical procedures would you recommend? Advice on any introductory document, software as well as your answers would be very much appreciated.

Edit: I have previous experience on PROCESS macro for testing mediation on cross-sectional data, and am curious whether I can use it for this kind of experimental data.

I would be most grateful for advice on interesting clinical cases where interventions have been approved based on hypothesis test results from high-quality RCTs, but where it has subsequently been discovered that the hypothesis test results corresponded to false positives. I am particularly interested in cases where, despite the positive RCT finding, the scientific rationale behind the hypothesis was later discredited.

Many thanks in advance!

In conducting meta-analysis of binary outcomes (in RCTs), in case the risk ratio has not been reported, what should we do with the studies that the number of outcomes occurrence is zero in both intervention and control groups? (for example, if we wanted to assess the effect of a drug on mortality, in some of the studies the number of deceased patients in both groups is zero), Is there any solution to not exclude these studies?

CRIS Guidelines (Checklist for Reporting In-vitro Studies) are used, as the name implies, for laboratory studies in a similar manner to the CONSORT 2010 statement developed to improve the reporting of RCTs. For the CONSORT 2010 statement one finds a downloadable checklist (table format in a word doc). Has anyone come across such a table for the CRIS guidelines?

Hi all,

I'm conducting a Systematic Review and the included studies have varying study designs including cohort, case control and cross-sectional (no RCTs found for my research question).

I cannot seem to find one Quality Assessment tool that assesses all these study designs in one, however the Newcastle Ottawa Scale has 3 different versions covering each of these study designs. Can I use the three different versions to assess my studies, or should I only be using one tool for all (which may require customizing it)?

Thanks!

I have a question if anyone can answer it...

For a randomized control trial, when I come to publish the results to a journal...can we add more authors than those originally registered as co investigators? Or is it a rule that only those listed during registration, are the only authors that I can list when I come to publish to a journal?

Thanks in advance

It's a debatable issue that RCTs are conducted in very controlled environment, whereas, in clinical settings, the scenerio is quite different. Further, it's not suitable research design for all systems of medicine. Therefore, is it correct to say RCTs as gold standard evidence or we have to explore more N of 1 type of designs.

Is there any organization can support the research proposals of clinical trials especially in countries where the funding and support of these trials is so weak or not finding?

As you know the nature of split mouth design is paired, however when we have both split mouth RCTs and Parallel RCTs:

1) Can we summarize and merge both study designs in one analysis?

2) should we find External Correlation amount for split mouth design?

3) generally, How to do meta-analysis with split mouth designs?

I am designing a RCTs and I performed power analysis for a set of outcome variables. Some have ok power but very low in others. Do you have any idea how to improve power of a RCTs? We have a very limited control to recruit more study participants due to our budget constraint.

Thank you in advance.

I‘m doing my dissertation and the results data are all positive in the reduction of tumor size with a drug I Would like to know what method should I use or any suggestion would be really appreciated

Hello.

This study had problems in randomization process. Yet, it has added in several MA of RCTs.

Discussing with several researchers, I always heard different opinions about its inclusion or not.

In case it wouldn't affect I2 or the effect size, would you include it in a MA of RCTs?

"

*At first, we intended to divide participants randomly into 3 groups, each with 20 men and 62 women: no walking training, moderate-intensity continuous walking training, and high-intensity interval walking training.***However, a few of the participants were married couples and wanted to join the same group, and others, who lived a distance from an administrative center, wished to be assigned to the interval walking group so that they could visit a local community office nearer their homes**."*Effects of High-Intensity Interval Walking Training on Physical Fitness*

*and Blood Pressure in Middle-Aged and Older People*

*KEN-ICHI NEMOTO, MS; HIROKAZU GEN-NO, PHD; SHIZUE MASUKI, PHD; KAZUNOBU OKAZAKI, PHD; AND HIROSHI NOSE, MD, PHD*

*Thanks,*

*Jorge*

I am planning to prepare Synopsis for Randomised Controlled Trial with Clinical Superiority Trial. I want to compare the Periapical Healing Outcome of Sealapex vs Endosequence BC Sealers. Primary Outcome is Post Endodontic Treatment Decrease in periapical radiolucency. There are currently no Human Studies available, but Limited Animal Studies are available in literature. I'm having difficulty in calculating the Sample Size for my Clinical Trial among Humans.

Please Guide.

I have seen for the first time a systematic literature review and meta-analysis that has prospectively registered their review in PROSPERO and I am wondering what is the main reason for creating this database and will registration become essential to publish systematic literature reviews and meta analses in the future.

I can understand the reason for registering Clinical Trials in clinicaltrials.gov so that we have a record of all RCTs and can follow up with unfinished trials when carrying out a Cochrane Review etc but am not able to understand the need for systematic reviews.

Is it simply a database where people can learn the technique of carrying out good quality systematic reviews etc?

Ken

Dear all,

I want to conduct a network meta-analysis to find out the efficacy of different surgical interventions. I will use R as the main software. However, this is the first time I do a network meta-analysis, would you please give me some suggestions?

1) Frequentist vs. Bayesian methods, which one that I should use?

2) The network needs only RCTs, or should I include high-quality protective cohort studies, make a comparison between them?

Thank you very much.

Hello RG researchers

What is the wrong that need major correction?

Data integrity of 35 randomised controlled trials in women’ health

Thanks for your kindly help

Hi,

I should performe a network meta-analysis and I would like to know if in the protocol of systematic review for NMA I can exclude the RCTs that assess the same drug with different dosage or instead is better include that kind of RCT in the systematic review and exclude them in the NMA directly.

Many thanks,

Giuseppe

Enrichment design in a clinical trial to evaluate efficacy and safety of a new investigational product

Any comment on this English study ( 2 parts) ? Is this procedure can be used for protection?

-Hypertonic saline nasal irrigation and gargling should be considered as a treatment option for COVID-19(Jogh 2020)

-A pilot, open labelled, randomised controlled trial of hypertonic saline nasal irrigation and gargling for the common cold (nature 2019)

I'm conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis, and have a list of publications that employed 2-group (mobile app vs control) or 3-group (mobile app, on-site, control) RCTs. Most of the publications reported 2-groups RCTs. All studies administered similar interventions (use of mobile app for health services), but 3-group RCTs added an additional intervention that involved a non-mobile app intervention.

Would it be alright to combine 2-group RCTs with 3-group RCTs in a meta-analysis? I'm guessing no as it would be very inconsistency to do so. If anyone else could advice and or have better solutions (and references!), that'll be really helpful!

Thanks!

Although originally used in meta-analysis, Forest plot is a popular graphical approach for displaying the results of subgroup analysis in randomized controlled trials. Can SPSS create a forest plot like that?

We are analysing data on a cluster randomised control trial. We have treated the clusters (classes, N = 8) as fixed effects, thus dummy coding to create 7 different variables. This is because we had non-convergance issues when running a MLM.

However, when we run the analysis (in SPSS or STATA), the analysis removes one of the classes (not always the same one, depending on the outcome), and the treatment variable. We are perplexed why this is happening, so if anyone has any suggestions and workarounds, they would be gratefully received.

I am going to do a meta-analysis of RCTs for a drug. Is is possible to include that drug derivatives RCTs into meta-analysis?

Which analysis can I conduct to determine effect of a health education intervention in a cluster randomised control with with both baseline and end term data for both control and intervention group.

Dear All,

Thank you for reading this question. I am conducting a systematic review of literature. The included articles have different study designs, for examples some of them are randomized control trials and some observation studies. I know how to assess the quality of each kind of these articles and I think I should use a checklist for RCTs and another checklist for observational studies. As a result, I should report their quality separately. Is it right?

Thanks,

I am planning to conduct a single centre, participant blinded RCT to assess the effectiveness of a pharmacist-led educational intervention on preventing hypoglycaemia in elderly patients with type 2 DM. I am also planning to conduct a nested qualitative study as a process evaluation for the intervention itself to see what worked and what didn't? and why? the contextual factors that may affect the delivery? and how the intervention can be scaled up in the future?

Each participant will be followed up after 3 months from recruitment and I am planning to conduct the qualitative interview at the follow-up visit. I am planning to recruit 200 patients in each arm.

If anyone can help with the best sampling strategy and sample size for this RCT? If you also have any suggections about the questions to be asked in the interview?

Thanks in advance

I want to analyze the efficacy of an intervention. The intervention is a cluster randomized control trial and we are comparing two waves (pretest vs. posttest). We have also two groups (experimental vs control group). I found that the basic formula is that ICC = between variance/between variance+whitin variance; However, I think that this formula doesn't consider that I have two time points. I found another formula in Kärna et al. (2011)' paper (see link below), where ICC is variance between cluster / variance between waves of measurement + variance between cluster + variance between individuals. I have two questions:

1. What do you think about Kärna et al. (2011)` formula? And if you think that it is ok, then, How I can compute the different variances?

2. If you consider that the formula proposed by Kärna et al. (2011) is not appropriate, How would you compute ICC in my case?

Link to Kärna et al. (2011)` paper: http://www.kivaprogram.net/assets/files/belgium_public/child-development-january_february-2011.pdf

Thank you in advance!!!

Basically I have two locations (Y and Z) and each location had an intervention and control arm. For each location I am trying to check the following: Location A: I want to check the effect of Variable A on Variable C on the intervention group. Variable A and C have a casual relationship. Ideally, the outcome of A will determine the outcome of C. This will be repeated with variable B and C. A and B are independent variables with C a dependent variable. Would a coefficient of correlation be ideal?

On the other end, I want to check the effect of variable A and B on C. Again within both arms and both locations. Again A, B and C have a casual relationship. Would a coefficient of correlation be ideal seeing as 1 variable is dependent on 2 others?

Most of the journals accept RCT study if it is registered. Where to get it register? NIH? WHO? which way is easy to register it. Kindly help in this regard.

Thanks

For medical researchers, "external validity" seems to show up as a limitation in RCTs. I think medical researchers typically deal with the issue of generalizability -- external validity -- through meta-analysis. Economists can sometimes run several RCTs and complete a meta-analysis (see, for example, the MIT poverty lab), but in the case of large field experiments, the number of times a similar study can be run is limited. So you end up with one or two field experiments on a given topic, and concerns about external validity.

Deaton and Cartwright address this issue in the context of economics. However, it often seems to me that philosophers argue that results of a single trial either "are" or "are not" externally valid, while economists look a bit more closely at the context to which the results are about to be generalized. When they do that, they are (presumably) importing knowledge from other research or from history to determine whether the new application is sufficiently similar to the experimental situation to allow generalizability. Is this a substitute for a meta-analysis?

Hello,

I have 3 one-arm pretest-posttest quasi-experiments.

Is it possible to do meta-analysis to their findings?

If so, how can I analyse them using Revman?

For me, I considered pretest data as control group's data, and posttest data as experimental group's data. Is that correct?

Also, I have other 3 two-arm RCTs. These studies have the same outcome in the former three studies. my question is do you recommend me to make two meta-analyses: the first to meta-analyse the former study, and the second to meta-analyse the latter studies? Or Conduct one meta-analysis using data of pre&posttest for the experimental group in all 6 studies.

Thanks in advance.

I am currently conducting a systematic review and meta analysis.

Hi All,

I am currently undertaking a systematic review. Two of the studies, completed by nearly the same authors, seem to have used the same set of participants.

The differences mainly lies in the study design:

Study 1 included a double-blind, randomized, sham controlled trial (5 days/ week for 2 weeks) in twenty patients with 3:2 ratio. At baseline, each patient underwent a clinical evaluation. Assessments were then carried out immediately after either shaml or real stimulation (post-stimulation, T1), at one-month (T2) and at three-months follow-up (T3).

Study 2 included a randomized, double-blind, sham-controlled, crossover trial (5 d/wk for 2 weeks) in 20 patients with a 1:1 ratio. Each patient underwent a clinical evaluation before and after real or sham stimulation. A follow-up evaluation was performed at 1 and 3 months with a crossover washout period of 3 months. After the washout, After a washout period of 3 months after the last visit (i.e., T3), each patient received the opposite treatment (crossover phase)

and underwent the same standardized assessment as in the first

phase, at baseline, at 2 weeks, at 1 month, and at 3 months

Both studies made use of the same outcome measures and data analysis involves identical data analysis measures.

What is your view on the below:

1. Should both studies be included in the review?

Since the authors seem to have made use of the same participants (same research authors, same institution, identical sample size, same outcome measurements), could the inclusion of the two studies bias the findings of the review?

Thank you!

Pasquale

Traditionally we know that educational strategies are rarely subjected to rigorous evaluation and so we would ideally perform an RCT approach to test the theory for my study. However, as we all know, in tertiary education this is not feasible, ethical or equitable as students can’t be individually randomised. So the method we employed was a non Randomised control trial. The trial was 2 arm.

Participants were allocated to an intervention arm on the basis of what course they were enrolled in. Even though there were 140 students in one arm and 77 in the other, we tried to ensure we had the best opportunity for the 2 groups to be equivalent in some ways like first year foundation courses on their first day of uni in first semester with learning outcomes almost the same in all courses.

Group 1 undertook the standard experiential task.

Group 2 undertook the standard experiential task with an additional experiential component.

I need to find guidelines for writing this study up.

I have looked at the CONSORT guidelines.

I have read a little about TREND guidelines and STROBE guidelines but I would dearly love input from academics who may have had experience in this study design.

One of the main objectives of a meta-analysis is to obtain reliable estimates of treatment effects when RCT results are not sufficient. The optimal information size (OIS) can be defined as the minimum amount of information needed in a meta-analysis to obtain reliable conclusions about an intervention. The calculation of OIS suggests a limit on the conduct of clinical trials in the area, indicating whether the existing information is sufficiently convincing to the extent that new RCTs on that subject are no longer needed.

The OIS assumes that all RCTs studied are part of a single large RCT. However, when we observe data heterogeneity, it is not appropriate to make this kind of assumption. Consequently, heterogeneity should be considered when the OIS is calculated, since its increase requires a larger information size.

In this sense my questions are as follows:

- How to calculate the optimal information size (OIS) adjusted for meta-analysis heterogeneity?

- If there is no possibility of determining if the meta-analysis is conclusive using the tool of the calculation of the OIS, is it possible and advisable to perform a qualitative evaluation of the confidence interval generated by the meta-analysis?

Basically I`ve done a review of the literature on disengagement from Early Intervention Psychosis services using systematic methods. There was heterogeneity across the studies, no RCTs and I`ve used `vote counting` to make sense of the results

I know that the Education Endowment Foundation (EEF) and National Center for Educational Evaluation and Regional Assistance (NCEE) publish their RCT data about educational interventions. Do you know of any other organisations/funders that publish RCTs data?

I have information regarding a study using following equation

for continuous outcome

Noordzij, M., Tripepi, G., Dekker, F., Zoccali, C., Tanck, M., and Jager, K. (2010). Sample size calculations: basic principles and common pitfalls.

*Nephrology Dialysis Transplantation*25, 1388-1393. doi:10.1093/ndt/gfp732.Here, U1= log10(6.21), we want to reduce one log of E.coli count by providing intervention so U2 would be= log10 (1.61), SD= log10(1.21), determine n/arm=?, two arm two sided test will use.

After converting all these result and value I got very odd number.

Oncology phase III RCTs usually compare a standard of care treatment with an experimantal one on the basis of a survival primary endpoint (e.g. PFS or OS). Along with the overall results, subgroups analyses (e.g. sex, age, ethnicity) are usually presented. Sometimes, a specific subgroup is identified as benefitting mainly from the experimental treatment; in this case, a new RCT aiming to determine efficacy in this specific subgroup is planned.

I would like to run a Bayesian network meta regression with a dichotomous covariate (say Z) on a validated cutoff for a biomarker (Z=0 if the continuous value of the biomarker is less than the cutoff, Z=1 otherwise). In doing so, I would have to regress results coming from the biomarker subgroups hazard ratio on three RCTs and one coming from a specific RCT pertaining only Z=1.

Is it correct to use these results in a single network meta regression? Or would it be better to run separate network meta-analyses for each subgroup (Z=0 and Z=1)?

I sense there is bias in both approaches, but obviuosly the Bayesian network analysis would only serve as an exploratory tool.

p.s. in the case of the Bayesian network meta regression I think that a prior on the common variance which allows only a small borrowing is more appropriate.

I am comparing two groups in a randomised controlled trial ( pre post design) using Linear Mixed Model in SPSS. How can I plot the group*time interaction?

Hi all, I have to present a research proposal for a job interview. I want to see the effects of value-reminder pictures near the healthier food on dietary intake. Dependent variable is the sales in healthy food.

1. group: will see the pictures of family, travel etc. to remember their values, the healthier option will be closer to the entrance as proximity affects the decision.

2. group: will only have the healthier option closer to the entrance of cafeteria, so testing only proximity effect.

3. group: No intervention

Should I use regression or anova? Is there anything specific I need to do because the 1st group's intervention has 2 components? Can I call it randomised controlled trial? Any help will be appreciated. Thank you!

Is there a tool that can be used across all study designs?

In my SR there are RCTs, observational studies, etc.

Or do I have to use several?

Many thanks

Georgina