Author
Listed:
- David B. Allison
(Department of Nutrition Sciences and the Clinical Nutrition Research Center, University of Alabama at Birmingham, dallison@uab.edu)
- Mai A. Elobeid
(Department of Biostatistics, University of Alabama at Birmingham)
- Mark B. Cope
(Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology, University of Alabama at Birmingham)
- David W. Brock
(Department of Biostatistics, , University of Alabama at Birmingham)
- Myles S. Faith
(Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology University of Alabama at Birmingham)
- Stephanie Vander Veur
(Center for Weight and Eating Disorders, University of Pennsylvania, School of Medicine, Philadelphia)
- Robert Berkowitz
(Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology, University of Alabama at Birmingham)
- Gary Cutter
(Department of Biostatistics, University of Alabama at Birmingham)
- Theresa McVie
(Department of Biostatistics, University of Alabama at Birmingham)
- Kishore M. Gadde
(Center for Obesity Research and Education, School of Medicine, Temple University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania)
- Gary D. Foster
(Center for Weight and Eating Disorders, University of Pennsylvania, School of Medicine, Philadelphia)
Abstract
Objective. To evaluate patient opinions on acceptable risks in exchange for a given degree of weight loss and their implications for sample size determination in obesity randomized clinical trials (RCTs). Design. Survey of patients entering RCTs for weight loss in a university-based clinical research setting and power calculations based on their responses. Participants. Men (n = 8) and women (n = 66) between 24 and 73 years of age with body mass indices ranging from 26.8 to 40.5 kg/m 2 . Measurements. Survey responses to questions assessing the added risk of serious adverse events (SAEs) or death one is willing to assume for a given degree of weight loss. Results. For 5% and 10% weight loss against risk for death per se, the mean acceptable risk tended to be about 3.5%, but the median (0.00) and mode (0.00) suggested that for most individuals, only a risk of ≤ 1% would be acceptable. Figures, estimated dropout rates, and base rates of SAEs (including deaths) from recent obesity trials indicate that 1-year 2-group obesity RCTs would need tens of thousands of participants per group to have 80% power to detect risks that are meaningful to patients at the 2-tailed 0.05 α level. Conclusion. Patient education is needed to explain which risks are realistically detectable in RCTs so that patients may provide truly informed consent, or RCT standards should be modified to meet patients’ implicit expectations.
Suggested Citation
David B. Allison & Mai A. Elobeid & Mark B. Cope & David W. Brock & Myles S. Faith & Stephanie Vander Veur & Robert Berkowitz & Gary Cutter & Theresa McVie & Kishore M. Gadde & Gary D. Foster, 2010.
"Sample Size in Obesity Trials: Patient Perspective Versus Current Practice,"
Medical Decision Making, , vol. 30(1), pages 68-75, January.
Handle:
RePEc:sae:medema:v:30:y:2010:i:1:p:68-75
DOI: 10.1177/0272989X09340583
Download full text from publisher
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:30:y:2010:i:1:p:68-75. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.