When studies use different scales to measure continuous outcomes, standardised mean differences (SMD) are required to meta-analyse the data. However, outcomes are often reported as endpoint or change from baseline scores. Combining corresponding SMDs can be problematic and available guidance advises against this practice. We aimed to examine the impact of combining the two types of SMD in meta-analyses of depression severity. We used individual participant data on pharmacological interventions (89 studies, 27,409 participants) and internet-delivered cognitive behavioural therapy (iCBT; 61 studies, 13,687 participants) for depression to compare endpoint and change from baseline SMDs at the study level. Next, we performed pairwise (PWMA) and network meta-analyses (NMA) using endpoint SMDs, change from baseline SMDs, or a mixture of the two. Study-specific SMDs calculated from endpoint and change from baseline data were largely similar, although for iCBT interventions 25% of the studies at 3 months were associated with important differences between study-specific SMDs (median 0.01, IQR -0.10, 0.13) especially in smaller trials with baseline imbalances. However, when pooled, the differences between endpoint and change SMDs were negligible. Pooling only the more favourable of the two SMDs did not materially affect meta-analyses, resulting in differences of pooled SMDs up to 0.05 and 0.13 in the pharmacological and iCBT datasets, respectively. Our findings have implications for meta-analyses in depression, where we showed that the choice between endpoint and change scores for estimating SMDs had immaterial impact on summary meta-analytic estimates. Future studies should replicate and extend our analyses to fields other than depression.

Since the era of evidence-based medicine, it has become a matter of course to use statistics to create objective evidence in clinical research. As an extension of this, it has become essential in clinical research to calculate the correct sample size to demonstrate a clinically significant difference before starting the study. Also, because sample size calculation methods vary from study design to study design, there is no formula for sample size calculation that applies to all designs. It is very important for us to understand this. In this review, each sample size calculation method suitable for various study designs was introduced using the R program (R Foundation for Statistical Computing). In order for clinical researchers to directly utilize it according to future research, we presented practice codes, output results, and interpretation of results for each situation.

Network meta-analysis methods, which are an extension of the standard pair-wise synthesis framework, allow for the simultaneous comparison of multiple interventions and consideration of the entire body of evidence in a single statistical model. There are well-established advantages to using individual patient data to perform network meta-analysis and methods for network meta-analysis of individual patient data have already been developed for dichotomous and time-to-event data. This paper describes appropriate methods for the network meta-analysis of individual patient data on continuous outcomes.
This paper introduces and describes network meta-analysis of individual patient data models for continuous outcomes using the analysis of covariance framework. Comparisons are made between this approach and change score and final score only approaches, which are frequently used and have been proposed in the methodological literature. A motivating example on the effectiveness of acupuncture for chronic pain is used to demonstrate the methods. Individual patient data on 28 randomised controlled trials were synthesised. Consistency of endpoints across the evidence base was obtained through standardisation and mapping exercises.
Individual patient data availability avoided the use of non-baseline-adjusted models, allowing instead for analysis of covariance models to be applied and thus improving the precision of treatment effect estimates while adjusting for baseline imbalance.
The network meta-analysis of individual patient data using the analysis of covariance approach is advocated to be the most appropriate modelling approach for network meta-analysis of continuous outcomes, particularly in the presence of baseline imbalance. Further methods developments are required to address the challenge of analysing aggregate level data in the presence of baseline imbalance.

Sample size justification is an important consideration when planning a clinical trial, not only for the main trial but also for any preliminary pilot trial. When the outcome is a continuous variable, the sample size calculation requires an accurate estimate of the standard deviation of the outcome measure. A pilot trial can be used to get an estimate of the standard deviation, which could then be used to anticipate what may be observed in the main trial. However, an important consideration is that pilot trials often estimate the standard deviation parameter imprecisely. This paper looks at how we can choose an external pilot trial sample size in order to minimise the sample size of the overall clinical trial programme, that is, the pilot and the main trial together. We produce a method of calculating the optimal solution to the required pilot trial sample size when the standardised effect size for the main trial is known. However, as it may not be possible to know the standardised effect size to be used prior to the pilot trial, approximate rules are also presented. For a main trial designed with 90% power and two-sided 5% significance, we recommend pilot trial sample sizes per treatment arm of 75, 25, 15 and 10 for standardised effect sizes that are extra small (≤0.1), small (0.2), medium (0.5) or large (0.8), respectively.