William Beaubien-Souligny, Michel Gouin, Karel Huard
{"title":"Sample Size of Trials Investigating the Impact of Point-of-Care Ultrasound-Guided Strategies on Patient Outcomes: A Systematic Review.","authors":"William Beaubien-Souligny, Michel Gouin, Karel Huard","doi":"10.1002/jum.70001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) is increasingly utilized for bedside diagnosis and management in diverse clinical contexts. However, the design of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the impact of POCUS-guided strategies on clinical outcomes presents significant challenges. This study aims to explore the assumptions underlying sample size estimation in POCUS-guided trials and assess the adequacy of sample sizes in published trials through a systematic review. We performed a sample size analysis considering varying rates of POCUS-induced management changes and plausible effect sizes on binary and continuous patient-centered outcomes. Additionally, a systematic review of PubMed was conducted to identify RCTs comparing POCUS-guided management to usual care, extracting data on planned and actual sample sizes and justifications for sample size decisions. Sample size estimations revealed a substantial dependence on the proportion of participants experiencing management changes due to POCUS findings. For example, achieving adequate power in a trial with a moderate effect size requires over 1000 participants if POCUS alters management in 50% of cases. Our review included 25 RCTs, with a median sample size of 206 participants (interquartile range 122-250). Only 68% of trials reported sample size justifications, and 41% failed to meet planned recruitment targets, primarily due to recruitment challenges and other logistical barriers. Most trials investigating POCUS-guided strategies are underpowered, underscoring the need for realistic sample size estimations that consider the rate of POCUS-induced management changes and anticipated effect sizes. Future trials should incorporate pilot phases and innovative designs to optimize feasibility and power.</p>","PeriodicalId":17563,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Ultrasound in Medicine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Ultrasound in Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/jum.70001","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ACOUSTICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) is increasingly utilized for bedside diagnosis and management in diverse clinical contexts. However, the design of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the impact of POCUS-guided strategies on clinical outcomes presents significant challenges. This study aims to explore the assumptions underlying sample size estimation in POCUS-guided trials and assess the adequacy of sample sizes in published trials through a systematic review. We performed a sample size analysis considering varying rates of POCUS-induced management changes and plausible effect sizes on binary and continuous patient-centered outcomes. Additionally, a systematic review of PubMed was conducted to identify RCTs comparing POCUS-guided management to usual care, extracting data on planned and actual sample sizes and justifications for sample size decisions. Sample size estimations revealed a substantial dependence on the proportion of participants experiencing management changes due to POCUS findings. For example, achieving adequate power in a trial with a moderate effect size requires over 1000 participants if POCUS alters management in 50% of cases. Our review included 25 RCTs, with a median sample size of 206 participants (interquartile range 122-250). Only 68% of trials reported sample size justifications, and 41% failed to meet planned recruitment targets, primarily due to recruitment challenges and other logistical barriers. Most trials investigating POCUS-guided strategies are underpowered, underscoring the need for realistic sample size estimations that consider the rate of POCUS-induced management changes and anticipated effect sizes. Future trials should incorporate pilot phases and innovative designs to optimize feasibility and power.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Ultrasound in Medicine (JUM) is dedicated to the rapid, accurate publication of original articles dealing with all aspects of medical ultrasound, particularly its direct application to patient care but also relevant basic science, advances in instrumentation, and biological effects. The journal is an official publication of the American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine and publishes articles in a variety of categories, including Original Research papers, Review Articles, Pictorial Essays, Technical Innovations, Case Series, Letters to the Editor, and more, from an international bevy of countries in a continual effort to showcase and promote advances in the ultrasound community.
Represented through these efforts are a wide variety of disciplines of ultrasound, including, but not limited to:
-Basic Science-
Breast Ultrasound-
Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound-
Dermatology-
Echocardiography-
Elastography-
Emergency Medicine-
Fetal Echocardiography-
Gastrointestinal Ultrasound-
General and Abdominal Ultrasound-
Genitourinary Ultrasound-
Gynecologic Ultrasound-
Head and Neck Ultrasound-
High Frequency Clinical and Preclinical Imaging-
Interventional-Intraoperative Ultrasound-
Musculoskeletal Ultrasound-
Neurosonology-
Obstetric Ultrasound-
Ophthalmologic Ultrasound-
Pediatric Ultrasound-
Point-of-Care Ultrasound-
Public Policy-
Superficial Structures-
Therapeutic Ultrasound-
Ultrasound Education-
Ultrasound in Global Health-
Urologic Ultrasound-
Vascular Ultrasound