↓ Skip to main content

Discrimination-based sample size calculations for multivariable prognostic models for time-to-event data

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Research Methodology, October 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Readers on

mendeley
62 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
Discrimination-based sample size calculations for multivariable prognostic models for time-to-event data
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology, October 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12874-015-0078-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rachel C. Jinks, Patrick Royston, Mahesh KB Parmar

Abstract

Prognostic studies of time-to-event data, where researchers aim to develop or validate multivariable prognostic models in order to predict survival, are commonly seen in the medical literature; however, most are performed retrospectively and few consider sample size prior to analysis. Events per variable rules are sometimes cited, but these are based on bias and coverage of confidence intervals for model terms, which are not of primary interest when developing a model to predict outcome. In this paper we aim to develop sample size recommendations for multivariable models of time-to-event data, based on their prognostic ability. We derive formulae for determining the sample size required for multivariable prognostic models in time-to-event data, based on a measure of discrimination, D, developed by Royston and Sauerbrei. These formulae fall into two categories: either based on the significance of the value of D in a new study compared to a previous estimate, or based on the precision of the estimate of D in a new study in terms of confidence interval width. Using simulation we show that they give the desired power and type I error and are not affected by random censoring. Additionally, we conduct a literature review to collate published values of D in different disease areas. We illustrate our methods using parameters from a published prognostic study in liver cancer. The resulting sample sizes can be large, and we suggest controlling study size by expressing the desired accuracy in the new study as a relative value as well as an absolute value. To improve usability we use the values of D obtained from the literature review to develop an equation to approximately convert the commonly reported Harrell's c-index to D. A flow chart is provided to aid decision making when using these methods. We have developed a suite of sample size calculations based on the prognostic ability of a survival model, rather than the magnitude or significance of model coefficients. We have taken care to develop the practical utility of the calculations and give recommendations for their use in contemporary clinical research.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 62 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 62 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 20 32%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 15%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 8%
Student > Bachelor 3 5%
Student > Postgraduate 3 5%
Other 7 11%
Unknown 15 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 20 32%
Computer Science 4 6%
Engineering 3 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 3%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 3%
Other 13 21%
Unknown 18 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 25 November 2016.
All research outputs
#17,775,656
of 22,830,751 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#1,678
of 2,013 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#187,897
of 279,097 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#20
of 23 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,830,751 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,013 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.2. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 279,097 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 23 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.