{
  "abstract": "There is a balance when determining the sample size of a new study: with too few participants, the study may not detect an effect; with too many, some participants may undergo inferior treatments unnecessarily. Both scenarios are wasteful and unethical. Furthermore, when evaluating healthcare, it is desirable to collate and synthesise evidence from multiple sources, 1 with meta-analysis being the standard statistical method for quantitatively summarising evidence from sufficiently homogenous studies.2",
  "authors": [
    {
      "affiliations": [
        "Department of Population Health Sciences, Biostatistics Research Group, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK",
        "NIHR Complex Reviews Synthesis Unit, Glasgow, UK"
      ],
      "name": "Clareece Nevill"
    },
    {
      "affiliations": [
        "NIHR Complex Reviews Synthesis Unit, Glasgow, UK",
        "Institute of Cardiovascular and Medical Sciences, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK"
      ],
      "name": "Terence J Quinn"
    },
    {
      "affiliations": [
        "Department of Population Health Sciences, Biostatistics Research Group, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK",
        "NIHR Complex Reviews Synthesis Unit, Glasgow, UK"
      ],
      "name": "Nicola Cooper"
    },
    {
      "affiliations": [
        "Department of Population Health Sciences, Biostatistics Research Group, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK",
        "NIHR Complex Reviews Synthesis Unit, Glasgow, UK"
      ],
      "name": "Alex Sutton"
    }
  ],
  "title": "MetaImpact: a novel tool to enable evidence-based sample sizes for future trials",
  "uid": "e23a123a-9b0f-5c96-99fe-3785e69c5243"
}