调查现场超声引导策略对患者预后影响的试验样本量:系统回顾。

IF 2.1 4区 医学 Q2 ACOUSTICS
William Beaubien-Souligny, Michel Gouin, Karel Huard
{"title":"调查现场超声引导策略对患者预后影响的试验样本量:系统回顾。","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":"{\"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}","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

摘要

即时超声(POCUS)越来越多地用于床边诊断和管理在不同的临床环境。然而,随机对照试验(rct)的设计评估pocus指导的策略对临床结果的影响存在重大挑战。本研究旨在探讨pocus引导试验中样本量估计的假设,并通过系统综述评估已发表试验中样本量的充分性。我们进行了样本量分析,考虑了pocuss引起的管理改变的不同比率以及对二元和连续以患者为中心的结果的似是而非的效应大小。此外,对PubMed进行了系统回顾,以确定比较pocus指导管理与常规护理的随机对照试验,提取有关计划和实际样本量的数据以及样本量决定的理由。样本量估计显示,由于POCUS的发现,经历管理变化的参与者比例有很大的依赖性。例如,如果POCUS在50%的病例中改变管理,则在具有中等效应大小的试验中获得足够的功效需要超过1000名参与者。我们的综述包括25项随机对照试验,中位样本量为206名参与者(四分位数范围为122-250)。只有68%的试验报告了样本量的合理性,41%的试验未能达到计划的招聘目标,主要是由于招聘挑战和其他后勤障碍。大多数研究pocuss引导策略的试验都缺乏足够的动力,这强调了考虑pocuss诱导的管理变化率和预期效应大小的现实样本量估计的必要性。未来的试验应包括试点阶段和创新设计,以优化可行性和功率。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Sample Size of Trials Investigating the Impact of Point-of-Care Ultrasound-Guided Strategies on Patient Outcomes: A Systematic Review.

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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.10
自引率
4.30%
发文量
205
审稿时长
1.5 months
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
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信