Cargando…

Determining the sample size required to establish whether a medical device is non-inferior to an external benchmark

OBJECTIVES: The use of benchmarks to assess the performance of implants such as those used in arthroplasty surgery is a widespread practice. It provides surgeons, patients and regulatory authorities with the reassurance that implants used are safe and effective. However, it is not currently clear ho...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Sayers, Adrian, Crowther, Michael J, Judge, Andrew, Whitehouse, Michael R, Blom, Ashley W
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5652499/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28851772
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-015397
_version_ 1783273070094450688
author Sayers, Adrian
Crowther, Michael J
Judge, Andrew
Whitehouse, Michael R
Blom, Ashley W
author_facet Sayers, Adrian
Crowther, Michael J
Judge, Andrew
Whitehouse, Michael R
Blom, Ashley W
author_sort Sayers, Adrian
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVES: The use of benchmarks to assess the performance of implants such as those used in arthroplasty surgery is a widespread practice. It provides surgeons, patients and regulatory authorities with the reassurance that implants used are safe and effective. However, it is not currently clear how or how many implants should be statistically compared with a benchmark to assess whether or not that implant is superior, equivalent, non-inferior or inferior to the performance benchmark of interest. We aim to describe the methods and sample size required to conduct a one-sample non-inferiority study of a medical device for the purposes of benchmarking. DESIGN: Simulation study. SETTING: Simulation study of a national register of medical devices. METHODS: We simulated data, with and without a non-informative competing risk, to represent an arthroplasty population and describe three methods of analysis (z-test, 1−Kaplan-Meier and competing risks) commonly used in surgical research. PRIMARY OUTCOME: We evaluate the performance of each method using power, bias, root-mean-square error, coverage and CI width. RESULTS: 1−Kaplan-Meier provides an unbiased estimate of implant net failure, which can be used to assess if a surgical device is non-inferior to an external benchmark. Small non-inferiority margins require significantly more individuals to be at risk compared with current benchmarking standards. CONCLUSION: A non-inferiority testing paradigm provides a useful framework for determining if an implant meets the required performance defined by an external benchmark. Current contemporary benchmarking standards have limited power to detect non-inferiority, and substantially larger samples sizes, in excess of 3200 procedures, are required to achieve a power greater than 60%. It is clear when benchmarking implant performance, net failure estimated using 1−KM is preferential to crude failure estimated by competing risk models.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5652499
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher BMJ Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-56524992017-10-27 Determining the sample size required to establish whether a medical device is non-inferior to an external benchmark Sayers, Adrian Crowther, Michael J Judge, Andrew Whitehouse, Michael R Blom, Ashley W BMJ Open Research Methods OBJECTIVES: The use of benchmarks to assess the performance of implants such as those used in arthroplasty surgery is a widespread practice. It provides surgeons, patients and regulatory authorities with the reassurance that implants used are safe and effective. However, it is not currently clear how or how many implants should be statistically compared with a benchmark to assess whether or not that implant is superior, equivalent, non-inferior or inferior to the performance benchmark of interest. We aim to describe the methods and sample size required to conduct a one-sample non-inferiority study of a medical device for the purposes of benchmarking. DESIGN: Simulation study. SETTING: Simulation study of a national register of medical devices. METHODS: We simulated data, with and without a non-informative competing risk, to represent an arthroplasty population and describe three methods of analysis (z-test, 1−Kaplan-Meier and competing risks) commonly used in surgical research. PRIMARY OUTCOME: We evaluate the performance of each method using power, bias, root-mean-square error, coverage and CI width. RESULTS: 1−Kaplan-Meier provides an unbiased estimate of implant net failure, which can be used to assess if a surgical device is non-inferior to an external benchmark. Small non-inferiority margins require significantly more individuals to be at risk compared with current benchmarking standards. CONCLUSION: A non-inferiority testing paradigm provides a useful framework for determining if an implant meets the required performance defined by an external benchmark. Current contemporary benchmarking standards have limited power to detect non-inferiority, and substantially larger samples sizes, in excess of 3200 procedures, are required to achieve a power greater than 60%. It is clear when benchmarking implant performance, net failure estimated using 1−KM is preferential to crude failure estimated by competing risk models. BMJ Publishing Group 2017-08-28 /pmc/articles/PMC5652499/ /pubmed/28851772 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-015397 Text en © Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2017. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted. This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt and build upon this work, for commercial use, provided the original work is properly cited. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
spellingShingle Research Methods
Sayers, Adrian
Crowther, Michael J
Judge, Andrew
Whitehouse, Michael R
Blom, Ashley W
Determining the sample size required to establish whether a medical device is non-inferior to an external benchmark
title Determining the sample size required to establish whether a medical device is non-inferior to an external benchmark
title_full Determining the sample size required to establish whether a medical device is non-inferior to an external benchmark
title_fullStr Determining the sample size required to establish whether a medical device is non-inferior to an external benchmark
title_full_unstemmed Determining the sample size required to establish whether a medical device is non-inferior to an external benchmark
title_short Determining the sample size required to establish whether a medical device is non-inferior to an external benchmark
title_sort determining the sample size required to establish whether a medical device is non-inferior to an external benchmark
topic Research Methods
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5652499/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28851772
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-015397
work_keys_str_mv AT sayersadrian determiningthesamplesizerequiredtoestablishwhetheramedicaldeviceisnoninferiortoanexternalbenchmark
AT crowthermichaelj determiningthesamplesizerequiredtoestablishwhetheramedicaldeviceisnoninferiortoanexternalbenchmark
AT judgeandrew determiningthesamplesizerequiredtoestablishwhetheramedicaldeviceisnoninferiortoanexternalbenchmark
AT whitehousemichaelr determiningthesamplesizerequiredtoestablishwhetheramedicaldeviceisnoninferiortoanexternalbenchmark
AT blomashleyw determiningthesamplesizerequiredtoestablishwhetheramedicaldeviceisnoninferiortoanexternalbenchmark