PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 12424672

[Sample size determination in reference-controlled diagnostic trials].

Abstract

PURPOSE: A tutorial illustration of a flexible approach to determine the sample size in reference-controlled diagnostic trials. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Assuming the usual setting of a new diagnostic method to be compared with a reference method, the emphasis is on the sensitivity of the new method in comparison with the reference method, using a binary outcome (positive versus negative) for both methods. Based on the confidence interval of the sensitivity, a simple but flexible procedure for determining the sample size is described, which incorporates clinically interpretable information. The procedure is illustrated by the fictitious planning of a trial to assess the diagnostic value of MRI versus arthroscopy as a reference, in the detection of meniscal ruptures. RESULTS: The principal investigator merely has to propose the range for the sensitivity in which the new method is considered equal to the reference method. Furthermore, it must be decided in advance how accurate the study outcome should determine the sensitivity of the new method, i.e., how wide its maximum confidence interval may become. The minimum sample size necessary for the trial can be directly derived from this outlined strategy, which can easily be extended by simultaneous consideration of sensitivity and specificity of the new method being tested. CONCLUSION: The flexible approach to planning by means of the confidence interval of the sensitivity controls the desired confidence of the outcome of the diagnostic trial. It allows a priori evaluation of study budget, study duration, number of study centers and, above all, any ethical limitations. It provides arguments for the investigator to proceed with the comparison and a rationale for the decision to conduct the comparison as mono- or multicentric trial

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

F Krummenauer, H U Kauczor. 2002. [Sample size determination in reference-controlled diagnostic trials].. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-2002-35346

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Diagnosis of chondral lesions of the knee joint: can MRI replace arthroscopy? A prospective study.

The role of magnetic resonance tomography (MRI) for the diagnosis of chondral lesions of the knee joint is still unclear. The sensitivity of the method ranges from 15% to 96%. The scope of our daily experiences showed that there were considerable deviations between the tomographical and arthroscopical results, which vary from the results of experimental studies. Therefore we have conducted a prospective study to investigate the question of how MRI can replace arthroscopy (ASC) in the diagnosis of cartilage damages in the scope of daily routine. All 195 patients included in this study received a magnetic resonance tomography followed by an arthroscopy. A clear diagnosis of supposition had to be determined before the magnetic resonance tomography. The patients were divided into 3 Groups. Group A (n=86) received a standard Military Hospital Ulm (MH) MRI--sagittal STIR TSE and PD TSE, coronal and transversal T2 FFE (TR=660 ms, TE=18 ms, FA=30 degrees, 512 matrix). In addition, one sub-Group, AK (n=21) was examined with a special cartilage sequence of the cartilage fs T1 W FFE. Neither patients in Group AK nor in Group A as a whole received any contrast medium. Group B (n=88) was examined with an alternate MRI protocol (Radiological Joint Practice, Neu-Ulm--sagittal T1 SE, T2 SE and T2 FLASH (TR=608 ms, TE=18 ms, FA=20 degrees, 256 matrix), coronal PD fs), employing gadolinium as a contrast medium. 156 cartilage lesions were found arthroscopically. In Group A the sensitivity was 33%, the specificity 99%, and the positive and negative prediction values 75% and 98% respectively. Group B reached a sensitivity of 53% and a specificity of 98%. The positive prediction value was 48% and the negative was 98%. Group AK showed a sensitivity of 38% and specificity of 98%; the positive and negative prediction values came to 50% and 97% respectively. In conclusion, our results indicate that the MRI examination techniques recommended in the literature at present are not able to replace the ASC for the diagnosis of cartilage damages of the knee joint. In view of the high specificity (97%-99%) and the high negative prediction value (97%-98%), MRI is suitable for the exclusion of cartilage lesions. For a negative MRI associated with a cartilage injury, a cautious attitude towards an operative cartilage treatment is therefore justified. Because the MRI can not replace the ASC for diagnostic of cartilage damage, the ASC still has to be seen as the method of choice for the evaluation of cartilage damage.

Arthroscopy↗