Related Experiment Video
Updated: Feb 26, 2026
Inverse Probability of Treatment Weighting Propensity Score using the Military Health System Data Repository and National Death Index
Published on: January 8, 2020
Sample size re-estimation in paired comparative diagnostic accuracy studies with a binary response
Gareth P J McCray1, Andrew C Titman2, Paula Ghaneh3
1Institute of Primary Care and Health Sciences, Keele University, David Weatherall Building, Stoke-on-Trent, ST5 5BG, UK. g.mccray@keele.ac.uk.
Background:
The sample size required to power a study to a nominal level in a paired comparative diagnostic accuracy study, i.e. studies in which the diagnostic accuracy of two testing procedures is compared relative to a gold standard, depends on the conditional dependence between the two tests - the lower the dependence the greater the sample size required. A priori, we usually do not know the dependence between the two tests and thus cannot determine the exact sample size required. One option is to use the implied sample size for the maximal negative dependence, giving the largest possible sample size. However, this is potentially wasteful of resources and unnecessarily burdensome on study participants as the study is likely to be overpowered. A more accurate estimate of the sample size can be determined at a planned interim analysis point where the sample size is re-estimated.
Methods:
This paper discusses a sample size estimation and re-estimation method based on the maximum likelihood estimates, under an implied multinomial model, of the observed values of conditional dependence between the two tests and, if required, prevalence, at a planned interim. The method is illustrated by comparing the accuracy of two procedures for the detection of pancreatic cancer, one procedure using the standard battery of tests, and the other using the standard battery with the addition of a PET/CT scan all relative to the gold standard of a cell biopsy. Simulation of the proposed method illustrates its robustness under various conditions.
Results:
The results show that the type I error rate of the overall experiment is stable using our suggested method and that the type II error rate is close to or above nominal. Furthermore, the instances in which the type II error rate is above nominal are in the situations where the lowest sample size is required, meaning a lower impact on the actual number of participants recruited.
Conclusion:
We recommend multinomial model maximum likelihood estimation of the conditional dependence between paired diagnostic accuracy tests at an interim to reduce the number of participants required to power the study to at least the nominal level.
Trial Registration:
ISRCTN ISRCTN73852054 . Registered 9th of January 2015. Retrospectively registered.
Related Concept Videos
01:23McNemar's Test
01:13Accuracy and Errors in Hypothesis Testing
In hypothesis testing, the probability of making a Type I error, denoted as α, is commonly set at 0.05. This significance level indicates a 5%...
01:17Sign Test for Matched Pairs
To conduct the sign test, we first calculate the differences in...
01:19Testing a Claim about Standard Deviation
The hypothesis testing for the claim of population standard deviation (or variance) requires the data and samples to be random and unbiased. The population distribution also must be normal. There is no specific requirement on the sample size as the estimation is based on the chi-square distribution.
As a first step, the hypothesis (null and alternative) concerning the claim about...
01:20Comparing the Survival Analysis of Two or More Groups
01:19Sample Size Calculation
The sample size for the given experiment or sampling effort is fundamental to any study design. Sample size decides the number of...