A Fully Bayesian Approach to Calculating Sample Sizes for Clinical Trials with Binary Responses

  • Hamid PezeshkEmail author
  • John Gittins


In this paper we discuss a behavioral Bayes approach to the sample size question in clinical trials with binary responses for which the central limit theorem cannot be applied to provide an adequate approximation of the size of a trial. A fully Bayesian framework is considered. The optimal sample size is obtained by maximizing the expected net benefit, which is the benefit from subsequent use of the new treatment under consideration minus the cost of the trial. The regulatory requirements for granting a licence to the new treatment are discussed. It is shown, not surprisingly, that the optimal sample size depends strongly on the expected benefit from a conclusively favorable outcome, and on the strength of the evidence required by the regulator. Conventional approaches to the question ignore the trade-off between costs and benefits.

Key Words

Sample size Clinical trial Fully Bayesian approach Binomial distribution Expected net benefit Regulatory authority 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Lemeshow S, Homser Jr. DW, Klar J, Lwanga SK. Adequacy of Sample Size in Health Studies. Chichester, England: John Wiley and Sons; 1990.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Raiffa H, Schlaifer R. Applied Statistical Decision Theory. Boston, MA: Division of Research Harvard Business; 1961.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lindley DV. The choice of sample size. Statistician. 1997;46:129–138.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Stallard N. Sample size determination for phase II clinical trials based on Bayesian decision theory. Biometrics. 1998;54:279–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Pezeshk H, Gittins JC. Sample size determination in clinical trials. Student. 1999;3(1):19–26.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gittins JC, Pezeshk H. A behavioral Bayes method for determining the size of a clinical trial. Drug Inf J. 2000;34(2):355–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gittins JC, Pezeshk H. How large should a clinical trial be? Statistician. 2000;49(2):177–187.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Spiegelhalter DJ, Freeman LS, Parmar MKB. Bayes-ian approaches to randomized trials, J R Statist Soc A. 1994;157:357–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Coad DS, Rosenberger WF. A comparison of the randomized play-the-winner rule and the triangular test for clinical trials with binary responses. Stat Med. 1999;18:761–769.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Pham-Gia T, Turkkan N. Sample size determination in Bayesian analysis. Statistician. 1992;41:389–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Wolfram S. Mathematica: A System for Doing Mathematics by Computer. Redwood City, CA: Addison Wesley; 1991.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Drug Information Association, Inc 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Mathematics, Statistics and Computer Science, Faculty of ScienceUniversity of TehranTehranIran
  2. 2.Department of StatisticsUniversity of OxfordOxfordUK

Personalised recommendations