Author:
Stark Maria,Hesse Mailin,Brannath Werner,Zapf Antonia
Abstract
Abstract
Background
The sample size calculation in a confirmatory diagnostic accuracy study is performed for co-primary endpoints because sensitivity and specificity are considered simultaneously. The initial sample size calculation in an unpaired and paired diagnostic study is based on assumptions about, among others, the prevalence of the disease and, in the paired design, the proportion of discordant test results between the experimental and the comparator test. The choice of the power for the individual endpoints impacts the sample size and overall power. Uncertain assumptions about the nuisance parameters can additionally affect the sample size.
Methods
We develop an optimal sample size calculation considering co-primary endpoints to avoid an overpowered study in the unpaired and paired design. To adjust assumptions about the nuisance parameters during the study period, we introduce a blinded adaptive design for sample size re-estimation for the unpaired and the paired study design. A simulation study compares the adaptive design to the fixed design. For the paired design, the new approach is compared to an existing approach using an example study.
Results
Due to blinding, the adaptive design does not inflate type I error rates. The adaptive design reaches the target power and re-estimates nuisance parameters without any relevant bias. Compared to the existing approach, the proposed methods lead to a smaller sample size.
Conclusions
We recommend the application of the optimal sample size calculation and a blinded adaptive design in a confirmatory diagnostic accuracy study. They compensate inefficiencies of the sample size calculation and support to reach the study aim.
Funder
Universitätsklinikum Hamburg-Eppendorf (UKE)
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Health Informatics,Epidemiology
Reference29 articles.
1. Zhou X-H, McClish DK, Obuchowski NA. Statistical methods in diagnostic medicine, vol. 569. 2nd ed. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons; 2011.
2. Pepe MS. The statistical evaluation of medical tests for classification and prediction. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2003.
3. Bossuyt PM, Irwig L, Craig J, Glasziou P. Comparative accuracy: assessing new tests against existing diagnostic pathways. BMJ. 2006;332:1089–92.
4. Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP). Guideline on clinical evaluation of diagnostic agents. London: European Medicines Agency, https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/scientific-guideline/guideline-clinical-evaluation-diagnostic-agents_en.pdf. Accessed 21 March 2021.
5. U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Guidance for industry and FDA staff: statistical guidance on reporting results from studies evaluating diagnostic tests. https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents/statistical-guidance-reporting-results-studies-evaluating-diagnostic-tests-guidance-industry-and-fda. Accessed 21 March 2021.
Cited by
2 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献