Cargando…

Sample size re-estimation in paired comparative diagnostic accuracy studies with a binary response

BACKGROUND: The sample size required to power a study to a nominal level in a paired comparative diagnostic accuracy study, i.e. studies in which the diagnostic accuracy of two testing procedures is compared relative to a gold standard, depends on the conditional dependence between the two tests - t...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: McCray, Gareth P. J., Titman, Andrew C., Ghaneh, Paula, Lancaster, Gillian A.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5513326/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28705147
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12874-017-0386-5
_version_ 1783250636440076288
author McCray, Gareth P. J.
Titman, Andrew C.
Ghaneh, Paula
Lancaster, Gillian A.
author_facet McCray, Gareth P. J.
Titman, Andrew C.
Ghaneh, Paula
Lancaster, Gillian A.
author_sort McCray, Gareth P. J.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: The sample size required to power a study to a nominal level in a paired comparative diagnostic accuracy study, i.e. studies in which the diagnostic accuracy of two testing procedures is compared relative to a gold standard, depends on the conditional dependence between the two tests - the lower the dependence the greater the sample size required. A priori, we usually do not know the dependence between the two tests and thus cannot determine the exact sample size required. One option is to use the implied sample size for the maximal negative dependence, giving the largest possible sample size. However, this is potentially wasteful of resources and unnecessarily burdensome on study participants as the study is likely to be overpowered. A more accurate estimate of the sample size can be determined at a planned interim analysis point where the sample size is re-estimated. METHODS: This paper discusses a sample size estimation and re-estimation method based on the maximum likelihood estimates, under an implied multinomial model, of the observed values of conditional dependence between the two tests and, if required, prevalence, at a planned interim. The method is illustrated by comparing the accuracy of two procedures for the detection of pancreatic cancer, one procedure using the standard battery of tests, and the other using the standard battery with the addition of a PET/CT scan all relative to the gold standard of a cell biopsy. Simulation of the proposed method illustrates its robustness under various conditions. RESULTS: The results show that the type I error rate of the overall experiment is stable using our suggested method and that the type II error rate is close to or above nominal. Furthermore, the instances in which the type II error rate is above nominal are in the situations where the lowest sample size is required, meaning a lower impact on the actual number of participants recruited. CONCLUSION: We recommend multinomial model maximum likelihood estimation of the conditional dependence between paired diagnostic accuracy tests at an interim to reduce the number of participants required to power the study to at least the nominal level. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN ISRCTN73852054. Registered 9th of January 2015. Retrospectively registered.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5513326
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-55133262017-07-19 Sample size re-estimation in paired comparative diagnostic accuracy studies with a binary response McCray, Gareth P. J. Titman, Andrew C. Ghaneh, Paula Lancaster, Gillian A. BMC Med Res Methodol Technical Advance BACKGROUND: The sample size required to power a study to a nominal level in a paired comparative diagnostic accuracy study, i.e. studies in which the diagnostic accuracy of two testing procedures is compared relative to a gold standard, depends on the conditional dependence between the two tests - the lower the dependence the greater the sample size required. A priori, we usually do not know the dependence between the two tests and thus cannot determine the exact sample size required. One option is to use the implied sample size for the maximal negative dependence, giving the largest possible sample size. However, this is potentially wasteful of resources and unnecessarily burdensome on study participants as the study is likely to be overpowered. A more accurate estimate of the sample size can be determined at a planned interim analysis point where the sample size is re-estimated. METHODS: This paper discusses a sample size estimation and re-estimation method based on the maximum likelihood estimates, under an implied multinomial model, of the observed values of conditional dependence between the two tests and, if required, prevalence, at a planned interim. The method is illustrated by comparing the accuracy of two procedures for the detection of pancreatic cancer, one procedure using the standard battery of tests, and the other using the standard battery with the addition of a PET/CT scan all relative to the gold standard of a cell biopsy. Simulation of the proposed method illustrates its robustness under various conditions. RESULTS: The results show that the type I error rate of the overall experiment is stable using our suggested method and that the type II error rate is close to or above nominal. Furthermore, the instances in which the type II error rate is above nominal are in the situations where the lowest sample size is required, meaning a lower impact on the actual number of participants recruited. CONCLUSION: We recommend multinomial model maximum likelihood estimation of the conditional dependence between paired diagnostic accuracy tests at an interim to reduce the number of participants required to power the study to at least the nominal level. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN ISRCTN73852054. Registered 9th of January 2015. Retrospectively registered. BioMed Central 2017-07-14 /pmc/articles/PMC5513326/ /pubmed/28705147 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12874-017-0386-5 Text en © The Author(s). 2017 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Technical Advance
McCray, Gareth P. J.
Titman, Andrew C.
Ghaneh, Paula
Lancaster, Gillian A.
Sample size re-estimation in paired comparative diagnostic accuracy studies with a binary response
title Sample size re-estimation in paired comparative diagnostic accuracy studies with a binary response
title_full Sample size re-estimation in paired comparative diagnostic accuracy studies with a binary response
title_fullStr Sample size re-estimation in paired comparative diagnostic accuracy studies with a binary response
title_full_unstemmed Sample size re-estimation in paired comparative diagnostic accuracy studies with a binary response
title_short Sample size re-estimation in paired comparative diagnostic accuracy studies with a binary response
title_sort sample size re-estimation in paired comparative diagnostic accuracy studies with a binary response
topic Technical Advance
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5513326/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28705147
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12874-017-0386-5
work_keys_str_mv AT mccraygarethpj samplesizereestimationinpairedcomparativediagnosticaccuracystudieswithabinaryresponse
AT titmanandrewc samplesizereestimationinpairedcomparativediagnosticaccuracystudieswithabinaryresponse
AT ghanehpaula samplesizereestimationinpairedcomparativediagnosticaccuracystudieswithabinaryresponse
AT lancastergilliana samplesizereestimationinpairedcomparativediagnosticaccuracystudieswithabinaryresponse