PubMed HealthSearch

PubMed · 10351998

Necessary sample size for method comparison studies based on regression analysis.

Abstract

BACKGROUND: In method comparison studies, it is of importance to assure that the presence of a difference of medical importance is detected. For a given difference, the necessary number of samples depends on the range of values and the analytical standard deviations of the methods involved. For typical examples, the present study evaluates the statistical power of least-squares and Deming regression analyses applied to the method comparison data. METHODS: Theoretical calculations and simulations were used to consider the statistical power for detection of slope deviations from unity and intercept deviations from zero. For situations with proportional analytical standard deviations, weighted forms of regression analysis were evaluated. RESULTS: In general, sample sizes of 40-100 samples conventionally used in method comparison studies often must be reconsidered. A main factor is the range of values, which should be as wide as possible for the given analyte. For a range ratio (maximum value divided by minimum value) of 2, 544 samples are required to detect one standardized slope deviation; the number of required samples decreases to 64 at a range ratio of 10 (proportional analytical error). For electrolytes having very narrow ranges of values, very large sample sizes usually are necessary. In case of proportional analytical error, application of a weighted approach is important to assure an efficient analysis; e.g., for a range ratio of 10, the weighted approach reduces the requirement of samples by >50%. CONCLUSIONS: Estimation of the necessary sample size for a method comparison study assures a valid result; either no difference is found or the existence of a relevant difference is confirmed.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

K Linnet. 1999. Necessary sample size for method comparison studies based on regression analysis.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10351998/

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Guidelines for surveillance, prevention, and control of West Nile virus infection--United States.

The introduction of West Nile (WN) virus in the northeastern United States during the summer and fall of 1999 raised the issue of preparedness of public health agencies to handle sporadic and outbreak-associated vector-borne diseases. In many local and state health departments, vector-borne disease capacity has diminished. Because it is unknown whether the virus can persist over the winter, whether it has already or will spread to new geographic locations, and the public health and animal health implications of this introduction, it is important to establish proactive laboratory-based surveillance and prevention and control programs to limit the impact of the virus in the United States. On November 8 and 9, 1999, CDC and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) cosponsored a meeting of experts representing a wide range of disciplines to review the outbreak and to provide input and guidance on the programs that should be developed to monitor WN virus activity and to prevent future outbreaks of disease. This report summarizes the guidelines established during this meeting.

Clinical Laboratory Techniques

Reporting and concordance of methodologic criteria between abstracts and articles in diagnostic test studies.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the quality and concordance of methodologic criteria in abstracts versus articles regarding the diagnosis of trichomoniasis. STUDY DESIGN: Survey of published literature. DATA SOURCES: Studies indexed in MEDLINE (1976-1998). STUDY SELECTION: Studies that used culture as the gold or reference standard. DATA EXTRACTION: Data from abstract and articles were independently abstracted using 4 methodologic criteria: (1) prospective evaluation of consecutive patients; (2) test results did not influence the decision to do gold standard; (3) independent and blind comparison with gold standard; and (4) broad spectrum of patients used. The total number of criteria met for each report was calculated to create a quality score (0-4). MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: None of the 33 abstracts or full articles reported all 4 criteria. Three criteria were reported in none of the abstracts and in 18% of articles (95% confidence interval [95% CI] 8.6% to 34%). Two criteria were reported in 18% of abstracts (95% CI, 8.6% to 34%) and 42% of articles (95% CI, 27% to 59%). One criterion was reported in 42% of abstracts (95% CI, 27% to 59%) and 27% of articles (95% CI, 15% to 44%). No criteria were reported in 13 (39%) of 33 abstracts (95% CI, 25% to 56%) and 4 (12%) of 33 articles (95% CI, 4.8% to 27%). The agreement of the criteria between the abstract and the article was poor (kappa -0.09; 95% CI, -0.18 to 0) to moderate (kappa 0.53; 95% CI, 0.22 to 0.83). CONCLUSIONS: Information on methods basic to study validity is often absent from both abstract and paper. The concordance of such criteria between the abstract and article needs to improve.

Clinical Laboratory Techniques