There is evidence that the MID for these two utility measures are not equal and differ in absolute values. The EQ-5D scale has approximately twice the range of the SF-6D scale. Therefore, the estimates of the MID for each scale appear to be proportionally equivalent in the context of the range of utility scores for each scale. Further empirical work is required to see whether or not this holds true for other utility measures, patient groups and populations.

Background-Both psychological and physiological disturbances have been implicated in the aetiopathogenesis of irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). Aims-To investigate how the psychological factors act, and the involvement of infective and physiological factors. Methods-Consecutive patients hospitalised for gastroenteritis reported life events for the previous 12 months, and past illness experiences on standardised questionnaires. They also completed psychometric questionnaires for anxiety, neuroticism, somatisation, and hypochondriasis. In some patients, rectal biopsy specimens were obtained during the acute illness and at three months postinfection. Results-Ninety four patients completed all questionnaires: 22 patients were diagnosed with IBS after their gastroenteritis (IBS+), and 72 patients returned to normal bowel habits (IBS−). IBS+ patients reported more life events and had higher hypochondriasis scores than IBS− patients. The predictive value of the life event and hypochondriasis measures was highly significant and independent of anxiety, neuroticism, and somatisation scores, which were also elevated in IBS+ patients. Rectal biopsy specimens from 29 patients showed a chronic inflammatory response in both IBS+ and IBS− patients. Three months later, specimens from IBS+ patients continued to show increased chronic inflammatory cell counts but those from IBS− patients had returned to normal levels. IBS+ and IBS− patients exhibited rectal hypersensitivity and hyper-reactivity and rapid colonic transit compared with normal controls, but there were no significant diVerences between IBS+ and IBS− patients for these physiological measurements. Conclusion-Psychological factors most clearly predict the development of IBS symptoms after gastroenteritis but biological mechanisms also contribute towards the expression of symptoms. (Gut 1999;44:400-406)

BackgroundExternal pilot or feasibility studies can be used to estimate key unknown parameters to inform the design of the definitive randomised controlled trial (RCT). However, there is little consensus on how large pilot studies need to be, and some suggest inflating estimates to adjust for the lack of precision when planning the definitive RCT.MethodsWe use a simulation approach to illustrate the sampling distribution of the standard deviation for continuous outcomes and the event rate for binary outcomes. We present the impact of increasing the pilot sample size on the precision and bias of these estimates, and predicted power under three realistic scenarios. We also illustrate the consequences of using a confidence interval argument to inflate estimates so the required power is achieved with a pre-specified level of confidence. We limit our attention to external pilot and feasibility studies prior to a two-parallel-balanced-group superiority RCT.ResultsFor normally distributed outcomes, the relative gain in precision of the pooled standard deviation (SDp) is less than 10% (for each five subjects added per group) once the total sample size is 70. For true proportions between 0.1 and 0.5, we find the gain in precision for each five subjects added to the pilot sample is less than 5% once the sample size is 60. Adjusting the required sample sizes for the imprecision in the pilot study estimates can result in excessively large definitive RCTs and also requires a pilot sample size of 60 to 90 for the true effect sizes considered here.ConclusionsWe recommend that an external pilot study has at least 70 measured subjects (35 per group) when estimating the SDp for a continuous outcome. If the event rate in an intervention group needs to be estimated by the pilot then a total of 60 to 100 subjects is required. Hence if the primary outcome is binary a total of at least 120 subjects (60 in each group) may be required in the pilot trial. It is very much more efficient to use a larger pilot study, than to guard against the lack of precision by using inflated estimates.