Traditional methods for Sample Size Determination (SSD) based on power analysis exploit relevant fixed values or preliminary estimates for the unknown parameters. A hybrid classical-Bayesian approach can be used to formally incorporate information or model uncertainty on unknown quantities by using prior distributions according to the Bayesian approach, while still analysing the data in a frequentist framework. In this paper, we propose a hybrid procedure for SSD in two-arm superiority trials, that takes into account the different role played by the unknown parameters involved in the statistical power. Thus, different prior distributions are used to formalize design expectations and to model information or uncertainty on preliminary estimates involved at the analysis stage. To illustrate the method, we consider binary data and derive the proposed hybrid criteria using three possible parameters of interest, i.e. the difference between proportions of successes, the logarithm of the relative risk and the logarithm of the odds ratio. Numerical examples taken from the literature are presented to show how to implement the proposed procedure.

Bayesian statistics plays a pivotal role in advancing medical science by enabling healthcare companies, regulators, and stakeholders to assess the safety and efficacy of new treatments, interventions, and medical procedures. The Bayesian framework offers a unique advantage over the classical framework, especially when incorporating prior information into a new trial with quality external data, such as historical data or another source of co-data. In recent years, there has been a significant increase in regulatory submissions using Bayesian statistics due to its flexibility and ability to provide valuable insights for decision-making, addressing the modern complexity of clinical trials where frequentist trials are inadequate. For regulatory submissions, companies often need to consider the frequentist operating characteristics of the Bayesian analysis strategy, regardless of the design complexity. In particular, the focus is on the frequentist type I error rate and power for all realistic alternatives. This tutorial review aims to provide a comprehensive overview of the use of Bayesian statistics in sample size determination, control of type I error rate, multiplicity adjustments, external data borrowing, etc., in the regulatory environment of clinical trials. Fundamental concepts of Bayesian sample size determination and illustrative examples are provided to serve as a valuable resource for researchers, clinicians, and statisticians seeking to develop more complex and innovative designs.

Rank methods are well-established tools for comparing two or multiple (independent) groups. Statistical planning methods for the computing the required sample size(s) to detect a specific alternative with predefined power are lacking. In the present paper, we develop numerical algorithms for sample size planning of pseudo-rank-based multiple contrast tests. We discuss the treatment effects and different ways to approximate variance parameters within the estimation scheme. We further compare pairwise with global rank methods in detail. Extensive simulation studies show that the sample size estimators are accurate. A real data example illustrates the application of the methods.

The expected value of the standard power function of a test, computed with respect to a design prior distribution, is often used to evaluate the probability of success of an experiment. However, looking only at the expected value might be reductive. Instead, the whole probability distribution of the power function induced by the design prior can be exploited. In this article we consider one-sided testing for the scale parameter of exponential families and we derive general unifying expressions for cumulative distribution and density functions of the random power. Sample size determination criteria based on alternative summaries of these functions are discussed. The study sheds light on the relevance of the choice of the design prior in order to construct a successful experiment.

Randomized selection trials are frequently used to compare experimental treatments that have the potential to be beneficial, but they often do not include a control group. While time-to-event endpoints are commonly applied in clinical investigations, methodologies for determining the required sample size for such endpoints, except exponential distribution, are lacking. In recent times, there has been a shift in clinical trials, with a growing emphasis on progression-free survival as a primary endpoint. However, the utilization of this measure has typically been restricted to specific time points for both sample size determination and analysis. This alteration in approach could wield a substantial influence on the clinical trial process, potentially diminishing the capacity to discern variances between treatment groups. In the calculation of sample sizes for randomized trials, this investigation operates under the assumption that the time-to-event endpoint conforms to either an exponential, Weibull, or generalized exponential distribution.

A sufficient number of participants should be included to adequately address the research interest in the surveys with sensitive questions. In this paper, sample size formulas/iterative algorithms are developed from the perspective of controlling the confidence interval width of the prevalence of a sensitive attribute under four non-randomized response models: the crosswise model, parallel model, Poisson item count technique model and negative binomial item count technique model. In contrast to the conventional approach for sample size determination, our sample size formulas/algorithms explicitly incorporate an assurance probability of controlling the width of a confidence interval within the pre-specified range. The performance of the proposed methods is evaluated with respect to the empirical coverage probability, empirical assurance probability and confidence width. Simulation results show that all formulas/algorithms are effective and hence are recommended for practical applications. A real example is used to illustrate the proposed methods.

We discuss three issues. In the first part, we discuss the criteria emphasized by Maurer, Bretz, and Xun, warning that it modifies the per comparison error rate that does not address the concerns raised by multiple testing. In the second part, we strengthen the optimality results developed in the paper, based on our recent results. In the third part, we highlight the potentially important role that the use of weights may have in practice and discuss the difficulties in assigning weights that convey the importance in the gain and loss functions, especially as it pertains to multiple endpoints.

Sample size calculations for two (independent) samples are well established and applied in (pre-)clinical research. When planning several samples, which is common in, for example, preclinical studies, sample size planning tools based on analysis of variance methods are available. Since the underlying effect sizes of these methods are often hard to interpret and to provide for the sample size planning, we employ multiple contrast test procedures for sample size computations in both parametric (under normality assumption) and nonparametric designs using Steel-type tests. Since the exact distributions of the test statistics are unknown under the alternative and variance heterogeneity, we use approximate solutions. Furthermore, since no closed formula for the sample size is available, we use numerical approximations for their computation. Extensive simulation studies are finally conducted to assess the quality of the approximations. It turns out that the methods are accurate in the sense that the multiple contrast test procedures reach the target power to detect the alternative of interest with the sample size computed. The developed procedures are a valuable tool to plan (pre-)clinical trials with several samples and are easily accessible in publicly available software.

Sample sizes of Phase 2 dose-finding studies, usually determined based on a power requirement to detect a significant dose-response relationship, will generally not provide adequate precision for Phase 3 target dose selection. We propose to calculate the sample size of a dose-finding study based on the probability of successfully identifying the target dose within an acceptable range (e.g., 80%-120% of the target) using the multiple comparison and modeling procedure (MCP-Mod). With the proposed approach, different design options for the Phase 2 dose-finding study can also be compared. Due to inherent uncertainty around an assumed true dose-response relationship, sensitivity analyses to assess the robustness of the sample size calculations to deviations from modeling assumptions are recommended. Planning for a hypothetical Phase 2 dose-finding study is used to illustrate the main points. Codes for the proposed approach is available at https://github.com/happysundae/posMCPMod.

The intracluster correlation coefficient is a key input parameter for sample size determination in cluster-randomised trials. Sample size is very sensitive to small differences in the intracluster correlation coefficient, so it is vital to have a robust intracluster correlation coefficient estimate. This is often problematic because either a relevant intracluster correlation coefficient estimate is not available or the available estimate is imprecise due to being based on small-scale studies with low numbers of clusters. Misspecification may lead to an underpowered or inefficiently large and potentially unethical trial.
We apply a Bayesian approach to produce an intracluster correlation coefficient estimate and hence propose sample size for a planned cluster-randomised trial of the effectiveness of a systematic voiding programme for post-stroke incontinence. A Bayesian hierarchical model is used to combine intracluster correlation coefficient estimates from other relevant trials making use of the wealth of intracluster correlation coefficient information available in published research. We employ knowledge elicitation process to assess the relevance of each intracluster correlation coefficient estimate to the planned trial setting. The team of expert reviewers assigned relevance weights to each study, and each outcome within the study, hence informing parameters of Bayesian modelling. To measure the performance of experts, agreement and reliability methods were applied.
The 34 intracluster correlation coefficient estimates extracted from 16 previously published trials were combined in the Bayesian hierarchical model using aggregated relevance weights elicited from the experts. The intracluster correlation coefficients available from external sources were used to construct a posterior distribution of the targeted intracluster correlation coefficient which was summarised as a posterior median with a 95% credible interval informing researchers about the range of plausible sample size values. The estimated intracluster correlation coefficient determined a sample size of between 450 (25 clusters) and 480 (20 clusters), compared to 500-600 from a classical approach. The use of quantiles, and other parameters, from the estimated posterior distribution is illustrated and the impact on sample size described.
Accounting for uncertainty in an unknown intracluster correlation coefficient, trials can be designed with a more robust sample size. The approach presented provides the possibility of incorporating intracluster correlation coefficients from various cluster-randomised trial settings which can differ from the planned study, with the difference being accounted for in the modelling. By using expert knowledge to elicit relevance weights and synthesising the externally available intracluster correlation coefficient estimates, information is used more efficiently than in a classical approach, where the intracluster correlation coefficient estimates tend to be less robust and overly conservative. The intracluster correlation coefficient estimate constructed is likely to produce a smaller sample size on average than the conventional strategy of choosing a conservative intracluster correlation coefficient estimate. This may therefore result in substantial time and resources savings.