Literature DB >> 11870820

Sample size calculations for comparative studies of medical tests for detecting presence of disease.

Todd A Alonzo1, Margaret S Pepe, Chaya S Moskowitz.   

Abstract

Technologic advances give rise to new tests for detecting disease in many fields, including cancer and sexually transmitted disease. Before a new disease screening test is approved for public use, its accuracy should be shown to be better than or at least not inferior to an existing test. Standards do not yet exist for designing and analysing studies to address this issue. Established principles for the design of therapeutic studies can be adapted for studies of screening tests. In particular, drawing upon methods for superiority and non-inferiority studies of therapeutic agents, we propose that confidence intervals for the relative accuracy of dichotomous tests drive the design of comparative studies of disease screening tests. We derive sample size formulae for a variety of designs, including studies where patients undergo several tests and studies where patients receive only one of the tests under evaluation. Both cohort and case-control study designs are considered. Modifications to the confidence intervals and sample size formulae are discussed to accommodate studies where, because of the invasive nature of definitive testing, true disease status can only be obtained for subjects who are positive on one or more of the screening tests. The methods proposed are applied to a study comparing a modified pap test to the conventional pap for cervical cancer screening. The impact of error in the gold standard reference test on the design and evaluation of comparative screening test studies is also discussed. Copyright 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2002        PMID: 11870820     DOI: 10.1002/sim.1058

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Stat Med        ISSN: 0277-6715            Impact factor:   2.373


  21 in total

Review 1.  Comparative accuracy: assessing new tests against existing diagnostic pathways.

Authors:  Patrick M Bossuyt; Les Irwig; Jonathan Craig; Paul Glasziou
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2006-05-06

Review 2.  Precision diagnostics: moving towards protein biomarker signatures of clinical utility in cancer.

Authors:  Carl A K Borrebaeck
Journal:  Nat Rev Cancer       Date:  2017-02-03       Impact factor: 60.716

3.  Whole-body MRI compared with standard pathways for staging metastatic disease in lung and colorectal cancer: the Streamline diagnostic accuracy studies.

Authors:  Stuart A Taylor; Susan Mallett; Anne Miles; Stephen Morris; Laura Quinn; Caroline S Clarke; Sandy Beare; John Bridgewater; Vicky Goh; Sam Janes; Dow-Mu Koh; Alison Morton; Neal Navani; Alfred Oliver; Anwar Padhani; Shonit Punwani; Andrea Rockall; Steve Halligan
Journal:  Health Technol Assess       Date:  2019-12       Impact factor: 4.014

4.  Interim analyses in diagnostic versus treatment studies: differences and similarities.

Authors:  Oke Gerke; Poul Flemming Høilund-Carlsen; Mads Hvid Poulsen; Werner Vach
Journal:  Am J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2012-07-10

5.  The sensitivity and specificity of guaiac and immunochemical fecal occult blood tests for the detection of advanced colonic adenomas and cancer.

Authors:  Clarence K W Wong; Richard N Fedorak; Connie I Prosser; Marianne E Stewart; Sander Veldhuyzen van Zanten; Daniel C Sadowski
Journal:  Int J Colorectal Dis       Date:  2012-06-14       Impact factor: 2.571

6.  Plasma protein profiling in a stage defined pancreatic cancer cohort - Implications for early diagnosis.

Authors:  Anna Sandström Gerdtsson; Christer Wingren; Helena Persson; Payam Delfani; Malin Nordström; He Ren; Xin Wen; Ulrika Ringdahl; Carl A K Borrebaeck; Jihui Hao
Journal:  Mol Oncol       Date:  2016-07-12       Impact factor: 6.603

7.  Statistical design for biospecimen cohort size in proteomics-based biomarker discovery and verification studies.

Authors:  Steven J Skates; Michael A Gillette; Joshua LaBaer; Steven A Carr; Leigh Anderson; Daniel C Liebler; David Ransohoff; Nader Rifai; Marina Kondratovich; Živana Težak; Elizabeth Mansfield; Ann L Oberg; Ian Wright; Grady Barnes; Mitchell Gail; Mehdi Mesri; Christopher R Kinsinger; Henry Rodriguez; Emily S Boja
Journal:  J Proteome Res       Date:  2013-10-28       Impact factor: 4.466

Review 8.  Estimation of diagnostic test accuracy without full verification: a review of latent class methods.

Authors:  John Collins; Minh Huynh
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2014-06-09       Impact factor: 2.373

9.  Diagnostic accuracy of a new cardiac electrical biomarker for detection of electrocardiogram changes suggestive of acute myocardial ischemic injury.

Authors:  David M Schreck; Robert D Fishberg
Journal:  Ann Noninvasive Electrocardiol       Date:  2013-10-07       Impact factor: 1.468

10.  METRIC (MREnterography or ulTRasound in Crohn's disease): a study protocol for a multicentre, non-randomised, single-arm, prospective comparison study of magnetic resonance enterography and small bowel ultrasound compared to a reference standard in those aged 16 and over.

Authors:  Stuart Taylor; Susan Mallett; Gauraang Bhatnagar; Stuart Bloom; Arun Gupta; Steve Halligan; John Hamlin; Ailsa Hart; Antony Higginson; Ilan Jacobs; Sara McCartney; Steve Morris; Nicola Muirhead; Charles Murray; Shonit Punwani; Manuel Rodriguez-Justo; Andrew Slater; Simon Travis; Damian Tolan; Alastair Windsor; Peter Wylie; Ian Zealley
Journal:  BMC Gastroenterol       Date:  2014-08-11       Impact factor: 3.067

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.