Here is the design of a clinical trial:

Official Title: Central Venous Stenosis Incidence After Right-sided Subclavian and Internal Jugular Vein Catheterization With a Silicone Temporary Hemodialysis Catheter

Included conditions:
- Subclavian Vein Stenosis
- Jugular Vein Occlusion

Study Armgroups:
- {'label': 'Right subclavian vein catheterization', 'type': 'ACTIVE_COMPARATOR', 'description': 'The temporary central dialysis catheter is placed in the right subclavian vein.', 'interventionNames': ['Procedure: Temporary central dialysis catheterization']}
- {'label': 'Right internal jugular vein catheterization', 'type': 'ACTIVE_COMPARATOR', 'description': 'The temporary central dialysis catheter is placed in the right internal jugular vein.', 'interventionNames': ['Procedure: Temporary central dialysis catheterization']}

Interventions:
- {'type': 'PROCEDURE', 'name': 'Temporary central dialysis catheterization', 'description': 'Placement of temporary central dialysis catheter', 'armGroupLabels': ['Right internal jugular vein catheterization', 'Right subclavian vein catheterization']}

Primary Outcomes:
- {'measure': 'Central vein stenosis', 'description': '\\>50 percent central vein diameter reduction (stenosis) using CT venography', 'timeFrame': '1.5-3 months after the catheterization'}

Please estimate the sample size based on the assumption: 
Significance level: one-sided 95% confidence interval (or equivalently a 90% two-sided confidence interval), Power: 80%, Missing/dropout rate: 50%.
Sample size {14}
        Sample size calculation for the primary outcome was performed using an online calculator (https://www.sealedenvelope.com/power/binary-noninferior/) based on results of a previous study [3] that demonstrated a CVS incidence of 10% after tCDC insertion in the internal jugular vein. The rate of stenosis events in historical data has ranged from 10% for the jugular vein to 42% for the subclavian vein. Given the perceived and shown advantages with subclavian lines (less infections/thrombosis, more comfortable for the patient during insertion and use), we chose a 15% noninferiority margin as this is less than half the absolute difference, is judged to be clinically acceptable and results in a reasonable sample size. Calculations revealed that 50 patients per group are needed to be 80% sure that the upper limit of a one-sided 95% confidence interval (or equivalently a 90% two-sided confidence interval) will exclude a difference in favour of the standard group. In order to have 100 patients perform the CT venography for the per-protocol analysis, at least 200 patients will probably have to be included in the trial. Important differences found between the treatment groups (in terms of how many that did not complete the protocol) will be reported.