Skip to main content Accessibility help


  • Britta Olberg (a1), Matthias Perleth (a2), Katja Felgentraeger (a2), Sandra Schulz (a2) and Reinhard Busse (a3)...


Background: The aim of this study was to assess the quality of reporting sample size calculation and underlying design assumptions in pivotal trials of high-risk medical devices (MDs) for neurological conditions.

Methods: Systematic review of research protocols for publicly registered randomized controlled trials (RCTs). In the absence of a published protocol, principal investigators were contacted for additional data. To be included, trials had to investigate a high-risk MD, registered between 2005 and 2015, with indications stroke, headache disorders, and epilepsy as case samples within central nervous system diseases. Extraction of key methodological parameters for sample size calculation was performed independently and peer-reviewed.

Results: In a final sample of seventy-one eligible trials, we collected data from thirty-one trials. Eighteen protocols were obtained from the public domain or principal investigators. Data availability decreased during the extraction process, with almost all data available for stroke-related trials. Of the thirty-one trials with sample size information available, twenty-six reported a predefined calculation and underlying assumptions. Justification was given in twenty and evidence for parameter estimation in sixteen trials. Estimates were most often based on previous research, including RCTs and observational data. Observational data were predominantly represented by retrospective designs. Other references for parameter estimation indicated a lower level of evidence.

Conclusions: Our systematic review of trials on high-risk MDs confirms previous research, which has documented deficiencies regarding data availability and a lack of reporting on sample size calculation. More effort is needed to ensure both relevant sources, that is, original research protocols, to be publicly available and reporting requirements to be standardized.



Hide All
1. Baeyens, H, Poupez, C, Slegers, P, et al. Towards a guided and phased introduction of high-risk medical devices in belgium; KCE report 249. 2015. (accessed September 17, 2015).
2. Persistence Market research. Neurostimulation Devices Market: Global Industry Analysis and Forecast to 2020 [Press Release]. (accessed September 17, 2015).
3. Storz, P, Kolpatzik, K, Perleth, M, et al. Future relevance of genetic testing: A systematic horizon scanning analysis. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2007;23:495504.
4. Mills, EJ, Wu, P, Gagnier, J, et al. The quality of randomized trial reporting in leading medical journals since the revised CONSORT statement. Contemp Clin Trials. 2005;26:480487.
5. International Conference on Harmonisation. ICH harmonised tripartite guideline. Statistical principles for clinical trials E9; Current Step 4, version dated 5 February 1998. (accessed September 17, 2015).
6. Weaver, CS, Leonardi-Bee, J, Bath-Hextall, FJ, et al. Sample size calculations in acute stroke trials: A systematic review of their reporting, characteristics, and relationship with outcome. Stroke. 2004;35:12161224.
7. Chan, AW, Hrobjartsson, A, Jorgensen, KJ, et al. Discrepancies in sample size calculations and data analyses reported in randomised trials: Comparison of publications with protocols. BMJ. 2008;337:a2299.
8. Reveiz, L, Cortes-Jofre, M, Asenjo Lobos, C, et al. Influence of trial registration on reporting quality of randomized trials: Study from highest ranked journals. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63:12161222.
9. Wieseler, B, Wolfram, N, McGauran, N, et al. Completeness of reporting of patient-relevant clinical trial outcomes: Comparison of unpublished clinical study reports with publicly available data. PLoS Med. 2013;10:e1001526.
10. Julious, S. Sample sizes for clinical trials. Boca Raton: Chapman and Hall/CRC; 2009.
11. Campbell, M, Machin, D, Walters, S. Medical statistics. A textbook of health science. 4th ed. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons; 2007.
12. Boutron, I, Moher, D, Altman, DG, et al. Extending the CONSORT statement to randomized trials of nonpharmacologic treatment: Explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med. 2008;148:295309.
13. Jones, G, Abbasi, K. Trial protocols at the BMJ. BMJ 2004;329:1360.
14. McNamee, D, James, A, Kleinert, S. Protocol review at The Lancet. Lancet. 2008;372:189190.
15. Charles, P, Giraudeau, B, Dechartres, A, et al. Reporting of sample size calculation in randomised controlled trials: Review. BMJ. 2009;338:b1732.
16. Clark, T, Berger, U, Mansmann, U. Sample size determinations in original research protocols for randomised clinical trials submitted to UK research ethics committees: Review. BMJ. 2013;346:f1135.
17. Rutterford, C, Taljaard, M, Dixon, S, et al. Reporting and methodological quality of sample size calculations in cluster randomized trials could be improved: A review. J Clin Epidemiol. 2015;68:716723.
18. Toerien, M, Brookes, ST, Metcalfe, C, et al. A review of reporting of participant recruitment and retention in RCTs in six major journals. Trials. 2009;10:52.
19. European Commission, Directorate-General for Health and Food Safety. MEDICAL DEVICES: Guidance document. Classification of medical devices. MEDDEV 2.4/1 Rev.9 .2010. (accessed September 17, 2015).
20. Moher, D, Hopewell, S, Schulz, KF, et al. CONSORT 2010 explanation and elaboration: Updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMJ. 2010;340:c869.
21. Castonguay, V, Wilson, MK, Diaz-Padilla, I, et al. Estimation of expectedness: Predictive accuracy of standard therapy outcomes in randomized phase 3 studies in epithelial ovarian cancer. Cancer. 2015;121:413422.
22. Rathi, VK, Krumholz, HM, Masoudi, FA, et al. Characteristics of clinical studies conducted over the total product life cycle of high-risk therapeutic medical devices receiving FDA premarket approval in 2010 and 2011. JAMA. 2015;314:604612.
23. Olberg, B, Perleth, M, Busse, R. The new regulation to investigate potentially beneficial diagnostic and therapeutic methods in Germany: Up to international standard? Health Policy. 2014;117:135145.
24. EUnetHTA. Public consultation on the second draft of: Core protocol Pilot for Additional Evidence Generation (AEG). 2015. (accessed September 19, 2015).
25. Chan, AW, Tetzlaff, JM, Gotzsche, PC, et al. SPIRIT 2013 explanation and elaboration: Guidance for protocols of clinical trials. BMJ. 2013;346:e7586.


Type Description Title
Supplementary materials

Olberg supplementary material
Table S3

 Word (21 KB)
21 KB
Supplementary materials

Olberg supplementary material
Table S2

 Word (76 KB)
76 KB
Supplementary materials

Olberg supplementary material
Table S4

 Word (57 KB)
57 KB
Supplementary materials

Olberg supplementary material
Table S1

 Word (42 KB)
42 KB


  • Britta Olberg (a1), Matthias Perleth (a2), Katja Felgentraeger (a2), Sandra Schulz (a2) and Reinhard Busse (a3)...


Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed