↓ Skip to main content

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

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Research Methodology, July 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (79th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (72nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
8 X users
q&a
1 Q&A thread

Readers on

mendeley
59 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Sample size re-estimation in paired comparative diagnostic accuracy studies with a binary response
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology, July 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12874-017-0386-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Gareth P. J. McCray, Andrew C. Titman, Paula Ghaneh, Gillian A. Lancaster

Abstract

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. 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. 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. 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. ISRCTN ISRCTN73852054 . Registered 9th of January 2015. Retrospectively registered.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 59 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 59 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 13 22%
Student > Master 10 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 8%
Student > Bachelor 4 7%
Other 4 7%
Other 16 27%
Unknown 7 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 19 32%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 5 8%
Mathematics 5 8%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 3 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 5%
Other 9 15%
Unknown 15 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 20 February 2020.
All research outputs
#3,675,990
of 22,988,380 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#571
of 2,027 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#65,418
of 312,506 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#11
of 40 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,988,380 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,027 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 312,506 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 40 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its contemporaries.