LECTURE 17 2011

LECTURE 17 2011 - Sample Size Estimation 1. Continuous...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–10. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: Sample Size Estimation 1. Continuous response variable Parallel group comparisons Comparison of response after a specified period of follow-up Comparison of changes from baseline Crossover study 2. Success/failure response variable (dichotomous response) Impact of non-compliance, lag Realistic estimates of control event rate (Pc) and event rate pattern Use of epidemiological data to obtain realistic estimates of experimental group event rate (Pe) 3. Time to event designs and variable follow-up Survey of 71 Negative Trials (Freiman et al., NEJM , 299:690-694,1978) Authors stated no difference P > 0.10 (2-sided) Success/failure endpoint Expected number of events >5 in control and experimental groups Using the stated Type I error and control group event rate, power was determined corresponding to: 25% difference between groups 50% difference between groups 0-9 10-19 20-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 70-79 80-89 90-99 5 10 15 20 25 Power (1 - ) 5.63% 25% Reduction Frequency Distribution of Power Estimates for 71 Negative Trials References: Frieman et al, NEJM 1978. 0-9 10-19 20-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 70-79 80-89 90-99 5 10 15 20 25 Power (1 - ) 29.58% Frequency Distribution of Power Estimates for 71 Negative Trials 50% Reduction References: Frieman et al, NEJM 1978. Implications of Review by Frieman et al. Many investigations do not estimate sample size in advance Many studies should never have been initiated; some were stopped too soon Non-significant difference does not mean there is not an important difference Design estimates (in Methods) are important to interpret study findings Confidence intervals should be used to summarize treatment differences Studies with Power to Detect 25% and 50% Differences 6 6 6 6 l l l l 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Percent of Studies with at Least 80% Power 6 25% Difference l 50% Difference 1975 1980 1985 1990 Moher et al, JAMA , 272:122-124,1994 Comparison of Sample Size Formulae for Means and Proportions (n per group) n = 1 (P c- P e ) 2 z 1- /2 2 P (1 - P ) + z 1- P c (1 - P c ) + P e (1 - P e ) [ ] 2 n = 1 (P c- P e ) 2 P c (1 - P c ) + P e (1 - P e ) [ ] z 1- /2 + z 1- [ ] 2 P c = Co nt ro l gro up event ra t e P e = E xperiment a l gro up event ra t e P = (P c + P e ) 2 = P c- P e For means: n = 2 2 z 1- /2 + z 1- ( 29 2 2 The formula above is sometimes just Derivation of Sample Size for Comparing 2 Proportions is Similar to that for Comparing 2 Means Z pe pc Z pe pc X pc - pe B A If pc-pe > A, reject H o If pc-pe A, accept H o Derivation of Sample Size for Comparing Two Proportions ( 29 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 ) ( 2 ) ( ) ( ) 2 ( ) ( ) 2 ( ) ( ) ( ) 2 ( ) ( Under / 2 2 and , Under c e e e e c c c c e e c c c c c e e e c c c c c e e e c c pe pc A c c pc pe pc pe pc e c o p p Z Z pq n p p q p q p Z q p Z n q p q p Z q p Z p p n n q...
View Full Document

Page1 / 50

LECTURE 17 2011 - Sample Size Estimation 1. Continuous...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 10. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online