Design characteristic of randomised controlled trials for geographic atrophy in age-related macular degeneration: Selection of outcomes and sample size calculation

5Citations
Citations of this article
22Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

PurposeThe selection of suitable outcomes and sample size calculation are critical factors in the design of a randomised controlled trial (RCT). The goal of this study was to identify the range of outcomes and information on sample size calculation in RCTs on geographic atrophy (GA).MethodsWe carried out a systematic review of age-related macular degeneration (AMD) RCTs. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, Cochrane Library, www.controlled-trials.com, and www.ClinicalTrials.gov. Two independent reviewers screened records. One reviewer collected data and the second reviewer appraised 10% of collected data. We scanned references lists of selected papers to include other relevant RCTs.ResultsLiterature and registry search identified 3816 abstracts of journal articles and 493 records from trial registries. From a total of 177 RCTs on all types of AMD, 23 RCTs on GA were included. Eighty-one clinical outcomes were identified. Visual acuity (VA) was the most frequently used outcome, presented in 18 out of 23 RCTs and followed by the measures of lesion area. For sample size analysis, 8 GA RCTs were included. None of them provided sufficient Information on sample size calculations.ConclusionsThis systematic review illustrates a lack of standardisation in terms of outcome reporting in GA trials and issues regarding sample size calculation. These limitations significantly hamper attempts to compare outcomes across studies and also perform meta-analyses.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Krezel, A. K., Hogg, R. E., Krezel, S., Fallis, R., & Azuara-Blanco, A. (2015). Design characteristic of randomised controlled trials for geographic atrophy in age-related macular degeneration: Selection of outcomes and sample size calculation. Eye (Basingstoke), 29(11), 1458–1463. https://doi.org/10.1038/eye.2015.132

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free