Clinicians and patients make many decisions in situations where optimal treatment is uncertain. Despite well-published advantages of clinical trials for reducing such uncertainties, a trial may not be conducted because the sample size indicated by classical, hypothesis-testing methods is so large that no one institution could afford to sponsor the trial. By explicitly taking into consideration the costs and benefits of a trial, Bayesian statistical methods permit estimation of the value to a health care organization conducting a randomized trial instead of continuing to treat patients in the absence of more information. This paper describes a method for calculating the cost-benefit to a health care organization conducting a clinical trial, and the expected sample size to adequately resolve the uncertainties about which treatment is better. The method is illustrated in the case of a proposed clinical trial of a drug to prevent multiorgan system failure and death in patients admitted to the Stanford University surgical intensive care unit. This method should permit health care organizations to evaluate a proposed trial's expected cost-benefit and the expected sample size that will resolve the question of interest, and thereby assist in the process of deciding whether to conduct the trial.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hornberger et al. (1998) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: