Use of sample size calculation in scientific research in Brazilian Physical Education journals

Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP)

Sample size considerations in active-control non-inferiority trials with binary data based on the odds ratio

This paper presents an approximate closed form sample size formula for determining non-inferiority in active-control trials with binary data. We use the odds-ratio as the measure of the relative treatment effect, derive the sample size formula based on the score test and compare it with a second, well-known formula based on the Wald test. Both closed form formulae are compared with simulations based on the likelihood ratio test. Within the range of parameter values investigated, the score test closed form formula is reasonably accurate when non-inferiority margins are based on odds-ratios of about 0.5 or above and when the magnitude of the odds ratio under the alternative hypothesis lies between about 1 and 2.5. The accuracy generally decreases as the odds ratio under the alternative hypothesis moves upwards from 1. As the non-inferiority margin odds ratio decreases from 0.5, the score test closed form formula increasingly overestimates the sample size irrespective of the magnitude of the odds ratio under the alternative hypothesis. The Wald test closed form formula is also reasonably accurate in the cases where the score test closed form formula works well. Outside these scenarios, the Wald test closed form formula can either underestimate or overestimate the sample size, depending on the magnitude of the non-inferiority margin odds ratio and the odds ratio under the alternative hypothesis. Although neither approximation is accurate for all cases, both approaches lead to satisfactory sample size calculation for non-inferiority trials with binary data where the odds ratio is the parameter of interest.

Sample size estimation: an overview with applications to orthodontic clinical trial designs

Proper sample size estimation is an important part of clinical trial methodology and closely related to the precision and power of the trial's results. Trials with sufficient sample sizes are scientifically and ethically justified and more credible compared with trials with insufficient sizes. Planning clinical trials with inadequate sample sizes might be considered as a waste of time and resources, as well as unethical, since patients might be enrolled in a study in which the expected results will not be trusted and are unlikely to have an impact on clinical practice. Because of the low emphasis of sample size calculation in clinical trials in orthodontics, it is the objective of this article to introduce the orthodontic clinician to the importance and the general principles of sample size calculations for randomized controlled trials to serve as guidance for study designs and as a tool for quality assessment when reviewing published clinical trials in our specialty. Examples of calculations are shown for 2-arm parallel trials applicable to orthodontics. The working examples are analyzed, and the implications of design or inherent complexities in each category are discussed.

Sample size considerations using mathematical models: an example with Chlamydia trachomatis infection and its sequelae pelvic inflammatory disease.

BACKGROUND The success of an intervention to prevent the complications of an infection is influenced by the natural history of the infection. Assumptions about the temporal relationship between infection and the development of sequelae can affect the predicted effect size of an intervention and the sample size calculation. This study investigates how a mathematical model can be used to inform sample size calculations for a randomised controlled trial (RCT) using the example of Chlamydia trachomatis infection and pelvic inflammatory disease (PID). METHODS We used a compartmental model to imitate the structure of a published RCT. We considered three different processes for the timing of PID development, in relation to the initial C. trachomatis infection: immediate, constant throughout, or at the end of the infectious period. For each process we assumed that, of all women infected, the same fraction would develop PID in the absence of an intervention. We examined two sets of assumptions used to calculate the sample size in a published RCT that investigated the effect of chlamydia screening on PID incidence. We also investigated the influence of the natural history parameters of chlamydia on the required sample size. RESULTS The assumed event rates and effect sizes used for the sample size calculation implicitly determined the temporal relationship between chlamydia infection and PID in the model. Even small changes in the assumed PID incidence and relative risk (RR) led to considerable differences in the hypothesised mechanism of PID development. The RR and the sample size needed per group also depend on the natural history parameters of chlamydia. CONCLUSIONS Mathematical modelling helps to understand the temporal relationship between an infection and its sequelae and can show how uncertainties about natural history parameters affect sample size calculations when planning a RCT.

Calculation of sample size for stroke trials assessing functional outcome: comparison of binary and ordinal approaches

Background Many acute stroke trials have given neutral results. Sub-optimal statistical analyses may be failing to detect efficacy. Methods which take account of the ordinal nature of functional outcome data are more efficient. We compare sample size calculations for dichotomous and ordinal outcomes for use in stroke trials. Methods Data from stroke trials studying the effects of interventions known to positively or negatively alter functional outcome – Rankin Scale and Barthel Index – were assessed. Sample size was calculated using comparisons of proportions, means, medians (according to Payne), and ordinal data (according to Whitehead). The sample sizes gained from each method were compared using Friedman 2 way ANOVA. Results Fifty-five comparisons (54 173 patients) of active vs. control treatment were assessed. Estimated sample sizes differed significantly depending on the method of calculation (Po00001). The ordering of the methods showed that the ordinal method of Whitehead and comparison of means produced significantly lower sample sizes than the other methods. The ordinal data method on average reduced sample size by 28% (inter-quartile range 14–53%) compared with the comparison of proportions; however, a 22% increase in sample size was seen with the ordinal method for trials assessing thrombolysis. The comparison of medians method of Payne gave the largest sample sizes. Conclusions Choosing an ordinal rather than binary method of analysis allows most trials to be, on average, smaller by approximately 28% for a given statistical power. Smaller trial sample sizes may help by reducing time to completion, complexity, and financial expense. However, ordinal methods may not be optimal for interventions which both improve functional outcome

Comparison of sample size formulae for 2x2 cross-over designs applied to bioequivalence studies

We consider the comparison of two formulations in terms of average bioequivalence using the 2 × 2 cross-over design. In a bioequivalence study, the primary outcome is a pharmacokinetic measure, such as the area under the plasma concentration by time curve, which is usually assumed to have a lognormal distribution. The criterion typically used for claiming bioequivalence is that the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the means should lie within the interval (0.80, 1.25), or equivalently the 90% confidence interval for the differences in the means on the natural log scale should be within the interval (-0.2231, 0.2231). We compare the gold standard method for calculation of the sample size based on the non-central t distribution with those based on the central t and normal distributions. In practice, the differences between the various approaches are likely to be small. Further approximations to the power function are sometimes used to simplify the calculations. These approximations should be used with caution, because the sample size required for a desirable level of power might be under- or overestimated compared to the gold standard method. However, in some situations the approximate methods produce very similar sample sizes to the gold standard method. Copyright © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Statnote 8: statistical power and sample size

Statistical software is now commonly available to calculate Power (P') and sample size (N) for most experimental designs. In many circumstances, however, sample size is constrained by lack of time, cost, and in research involving human subjects, the problems of recruiting suitable individuals. In addition, the calculation of N is often based on erroneous assumptions about variability and therefore such estimates are often inaccurate. At best, we would suggest that such calculations provide only a very rough guide of how to proceed in an experiment. Nevertheless, calculation of P' is very useful especially in experiments that have failed to detect a difference which the experimenter thought was present. We would recommend that P' should always be calculated in these circumstances to determine whether the experiment was actually too small to test null hypotheses adequately.

Estimation of Sample Size and Power For Quantile Regression

Quantile regression (QR) was first introduced by Roger Koenker and Gilbert Bassett in 1978. It is robust to outliers which affect least squares estimator on a large scale in linear regression. Instead of modeling mean of the response, QR provides an alternative way to model the relationship between quantiles of the response and covariates. Therefore, QR can be widely used to solve problems in econometrics, environmental sciences and health sciences. Sample size is an important factor in the planning stage of experimental design and observational studies. In ordinary linear regression, sample size may be determined based on either precision analysis or power analysis with closed form formulas. There are also methods that calculate sample size based on precision analysis for QR like C.Jennen-Steinmetz and S.Wellek (2005). A method to estimate sample size for QR based on power analysis was proposed by Shao and Wang (2009). In this paper, a new method is proposed to calculate sample size based on power analysis under hypothesis test of covariate effects. Even though error distribution assumption is not necessary for QR analysis itself, researchers have to make assumptions of error distribution and covariate structure in the planning stage of a study to obtain a reasonable estimate of sample size. In this project, both parametric and nonparametric methods are provided to estimate error distribution. Since the method proposed can be implemented in R, user is able to choose either parametric distribution or nonparametric kernel density estimation for error distribution. User also needs to specify the covariate structure and effect size to carry out sample size and power calculation. The performance of the method proposed is further evaluated using numerical simulation. The results suggest that the sample sizes obtained from our method provide empirical powers that are closed to the nominal power level, for example, 80%.

Effect of training-sample size and classification difficulty on the accuracy of genomic predictors.

Introduction: As part of the MicroArray Quality Control (MAQC)-II project, this analysis examines how the choice of univariate feature-selection methods and classification algorithms may influence the performance of genomic predictors under varying degrees of prediction difficulty represented by three clinically relevant endpoints. Methods: We used gene-expression data from 230 breast cancers (grouped into training and independent validation sets), and we examined 40 predictors (five univariate feature-selection methods combined with eight different classifiers) for each of the three endpoints. Their classification performance was estimated on the training set by using two different resampling methods and compared with the accuracy observed in the independent validation set. Results: A ranking of the three classification problems was obtained, and the performance of 120 models was estimated and assessed on an independent validation set. The bootstrapping estimates were closer to the validation performance than were the cross-validation estimates. The required sample size for each endpoint was estimated, and both gene-level and pathway-level analyses were performed on the obtained models. Conclusions: We showed that genomic predictor accuracy is determined largely by an interplay between sample size and classification difficulty. Variations on univariate feature-selection methods and choice of classification algorithm have only a modest impact on predictor performance, and several statistically equally good predictors can be developed for any given classification problem.

Some hypothesis tests for the covariance matrix when the dimension is large compared to the sample size

This paper analyzes whether standard covariance matrix tests work whendimensionality is large, and in particular larger than sample size. Inthe latter case, the singularity of the sample covariance matrix makeslikelihood ratio tests degenerate, but other tests based on quadraticforms of sample covariance matrix eigenvalues remain well-defined. Westudy the consistency property and limiting distribution of these testsas dimensionality and sample size go to infinity together, with theirratio converging to a finite non-zero limit. We find that the existingtest for sphericity is robust against high dimensionality, but not thetest for equality of the covariance matrix to a given matrix. For thelatter test, we develop a new correction to the existing test statisticthat makes it robust against high dimensionality.

Sample size and statistical power in the hierarchical analysis of variance: applications in morphometry of the nervous system.

Analysis of variance is commonly used in morphometry in order to ascertain differences in parameters between several populations. Failure to detect significant differences between populations (type II error) may be due to suboptimal sampling and lead to erroneous conclusions; the concept of statistical power allows one to avoid such failures by means of an adequate sampling. Several examples are given in the morphometry of the nervous system, showing the use of the power of a hierarchical analysis of variance test for the choice of appropriate sample and subsample sizes. In the first case chosen, neuronal densities in the human visual cortex, we find the number of observations to be of little effect. For dendritic spine densities in the visual cortex of mice and humans, the effect is somewhat larger. A substantial effect is shown in our last example, dendritic segmental lengths in monkey lateral geniculate nucleus. It is in the nature of the hierarchical model that sample size is always more important than subsample size. The relative weight to be attributed to subsample size thus depends on the relative magnitude of the between observations variance compared to the between individuals variance.

A program for the computation of power and determination of sample size in hierarchical experimental designs.

We have devised a program that allows computation of the power of F-test, and hence determination of appropriate sample and subsample sizes, in the context of the one-way hierarchical analysis of variance with fixed effects. The power at a fixed alternative is an increasing function of the sample size and of the subsample size. The program makes it easy to obtain the power of F-test for a range of values of sample and subsample sizes, and therefore the appropriate sizes based on a desired power. The program can be used for the 'ordinary' case of the one-way analysis of variance, as well as for hierarchical analysis of variance with two stages of sampling. Examples are given of the practical use of the program.

Sample size for measurement of root traits on common bean by image analysis

Evaluation of root traits may be facilitated if they are assessed on samples of the root system. The objective of this work was to determine the sample size of the root system in order to estimate root traits of common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) cultivars by digital image analysis. One plant was grown per pot and harvested at pod setting, with 64 and 16 pots corresponding to two and four cultivars in the first and second experiments, respectively. Root samples were scanned up to the completeness of the root system and the root area and length were estimated. Scanning a root sample demanded 21 minutes, and scanning the entire root system demanded 4 hours and 53 minutes. In the first experiment, root area and length estimated with two samples showed, respectively, a correlation of 0.977 and 0.860, with these traits measured in the entire root. In the second experiment, the correlation was 0.889 and 0.915. The increase in the correlation with more than two samples was negligible. The two samples corresponded to 13.4% and 16.9% of total root mass (excluding taproot and nodules) in the first and second experiments. Taproot stands for a high proportion of root mass and must be deducted on root trait estimations. Samples with nearly 15% of total root mass produce reliable root trait estimates.