A descriptive study of samples sizes used in agreement studies published in the PubMed repository

Abstract

AbstractIntroductionA sample size justification is required for all studies and should give the minimum number of subjects to be recruited for the study to achieve its primary objective. The aim of this review is to describe sample sizes from agreement studies with continuous or categorical endpoints and different methods of assessing agreement, and to determine whether sample size justification was provided.MethodsData were gathered from the PubMed repository with a time interval of 28thSeptember 2018 to 28thSeptember 2020. The search returned 5257 studies of which 82 studies were eligible for final assessment after duplicates and ineligible studies were excluded.ResultsWe observed a wide range of sample sizes. Forty-six studies (56%) used a continuous outcome measure, 28 (34%) used categorical and eight (10%) used both. Median sample sizes were 50 (IQR 25 to 100) for continuous endpoints and 119 (IQR 50 to 271) for categorical endpoints. Bland–Altman limits of agreement (median sample size 65; IQR 35 to 124) were the most common method of statistical analysis for continuous variables and Kappa coefficients for categorical variables (median sample size 71; IQR 50 to 233). Of the 82 studies assessed, only 27 (33%) gave justification for their sample size.ConclusionsDespite the importance of a sample size justification, we found that two-thirds of agreement studies did not provide one. We recommend that all agreement studies provide rationale for their sample size even if they do not include a formal sample size calculation.