Search

A sufficient number of participants should be included to adequately address the research interest in the surveys with sensitive questions. In this paper, sample size formulas/iterative algorithms are developed from the perspective of controlling the confidence interval width of the prevalence of a sensitive attribute under four non-randomized response models: the crosswise model, parallel model, Poisson item count technique model and negative binomial item count technique model. In contrast to the conventional approach for sample size determination, our sample size formulas/algorithms explicitly incorporate an assurance probability of controlling the width of a confidence interval within the pre-specified range. The performance of the proposed methods is evaluated with respect to the empirical coverage probability, empirical assurance probability and confidence width. Simulation results show that all formulas/algorithms are effective and hence are recommended for practical applications. A real example is used to illustrate the proposed methods., (© 2024 British Psychological Society.)

Traditional methods for Sample Size Determination (SSD) based on power analysis exploit relevant fixed values or preliminary estimates for the unknown parameters. A hybrid classical-Bayesian approach can be used to formally incorporate information or model uncertainty on unknown quantities by using prior distributions according to the Bayesian approach, while still analysing the data in a frequentist framework. In this paper, we propose a hybrid procedure for SSD in two-arm superiority trials, that takes into account the different role played by the unknown parameters involved in the statistical power. Thus, different prior distributions are used to formalize design expectations and to model information or uncertainty on preliminary estimates involved at the analysis stage. To illustrate the method, we consider binary data and derive the proposed hybrid criteria using three possible parameters of interest, i.e. the difference between proportions of successes, the logarithm of the relative risk and the logarithm of the odds ratio. Numerical examples taken from the literature are presented to show how to implement the proposed procedure., (© 2024 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston.)

The expected value of the standard power function of a test, computed with respect to a design prior distribution, is often used to evaluate the probability of success of an experiment. However, looking only at the expected value might be reductive. Instead, the whole probability distribution of the power function induced by the design prior can be exploited. In this article we consider one-sided testing for the scale parameter of exponential families and we derive general unifying expressions for cumulative distribution and density functions of the random power. Sample size determination criteria based on alternative summaries of these functions are discussed. The study sheds light on the relevance of the choice of the design prior in order to construct a successful experiment., (© 2024 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Bayesian statistics plays a pivotal role in advancing medical science by enabling healthcare companies, regulators, and stakeholders to assess the safety and efficacy of new treatments, interventions, and medical procedures. The Bayesian framework offers a unique advantage over the classical framework, especially when incorporating prior information into a new trial with quality external data, such as historical data or another source of co-data. In recent years, there has been a significant increase in regulatory submissions using Bayesian statistics due to its flexibility and ability to provide valuable insights for decision-making, addressing the modern complexity of clinical trials where frequentist trials are inadequate. For regulatory submissions, companies often need to consider the frequentist operating characteristics of the Bayesian analysis strategy, regardless of the design complexity. In particular, the focus is on the frequentist type I error rate and power for all realistic alternatives. This tutorial review aims to provide a comprehensive overview of the use of Bayesian statistics in sample size determination, control of type I error rate, multiplicity adjustments, external data borrowing, etc., in the regulatory environment of clinical trials. Fundamental concepts of Bayesian sample size determination and illustrative examples are provided to serve as a valuable resource for researchers, clinicians, and statisticians seeking to develop more complex and innovative designs., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Rank methods are well-established tools for comparing two or multiple (independent) groups. Statistical planning methods for the computing the required sample size(s) to detect a specific alternative with predefined power are lacking. In the present paper, we develop numerical algorithms for sample size planning of pseudo-rank-based multiple contrast tests. We discuss the treatment effects and different ways to approximate variance parameters within the estimation scheme. We further compare pairwise with global rank methods in detail. Extensive simulation studies show that the sample size estimators are accurate. A real data example illustrates the application of the methods., (© 2024 The Authors. Biometrical Journal published by Wiley‐VCH GmbH.)

Randomized selection trials are frequently used to compare experimental treatments that have the potential to be beneficial, but they often do not include a control group. While time-to-event endpoints are commonly applied in clinical investigations, methodologies for determining the required sample size for such endpoints, except exponential distribution, are lacking. In recent times, there has been a shift in clinical trials, with a growing emphasis on progression-free survival as a primary endpoint. However, the utilization of this measure has typically been restricted to specific time points for both sample size determination and analysis. This alteration in approach could wield a substantial influence on the clinical trial process, potentially diminishing the capacity to discern variances between treatment groups. In the calculation of sample sizes for randomized trials, this investigation operates under the assumption that the time-to-event endpoint conforms to either an exponential, Weibull, or generalized exponential distribution., Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (© 2024 The Author(s).)

Sample size calculations for two (independent) samples are well established and applied in (pre-)clinical research. When planning several samples, which is common in, for example, preclinical studies, sample size planning tools based on analysis of variance methods are available. Since the underlying effect sizes of these methods are often hard to interpret and to provide for the sample size planning, we employ multiple contrast test procedures for sample size computations in both parametric (under normality assumption) and nonparametric designs using Steel-type tests. Since the exact distributions of the test statistics are unknown under the alternative and variance heterogeneity, we use approximate solutions. Furthermore, since no closed formula for the sample size is available, we use numerical approximations for their computation. Extensive simulation studies are finally conducted to assess the quality of the approximations. It turns out that the methods are accurate in the sense that the multiple contrast test procedures reach the target power to detect the alternative of interest with the sample size computed. The developed procedures are a valuable tool to plan (pre-)clinical trials with several samples and are easily accessible in publicly available software., (© 2023 The Authors. Biometrical Journal published by Wiley-VCH GmbH.)

We discuss three issues. In the first part, we discuss the criteria emphasized by Maurer, Bretz, and Xun, warning that it modifies the per comparison error rate that does not address the concerns raised by multiple testing. In the second part, we strengthen the optimality results developed in the paper, based on our recent results. In the third part, we highlight the potentially important role that the use of weights may have in practice and discuss the difficulties in assigning weights that convey the importance in the gain and loss functions, especially as it pertains to multiple endpoints., (© 2023 The Authors. Biometrics published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of International Biometric Society.)

Sample sizes of Phase 2 dose-finding studies, usually determined based on a power requirement to detect a significant dose-response relationship, will generally not provide adequate precision for Phase 3 target dose selection. We propose to calculate the sample size of a dose-finding study based on the probability of successfully identifying the target dose within an acceptable range (e.g., 80%-120% of the target) using the multiple comparison and modeling procedure (MCP-Mod). With the proposed approach, different design options for the Phase 2 dose-finding study can also be compared. Due to inherent uncertainty around an assumed true dose-response relationship, sensitivity analyses to assess the robustness of the sample size calculations to deviations from modeling assumptions are recommended. Planning for a hypothetical Phase 2 dose-finding study is used to illustrate the main points. Codes for the proposed approach is available at https://github.com/happysundae/posMCPMod., (© 2023 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

A central goal in designing clinical trials is to find the test that maximizes power (or equivalently minimizes required sample size) for finding a false null hypothesis subject to the constraint of type I error. When there is more than one test, such as in clinical trials with multiple endpoints, the issues of optimal design and optimal procedures become more complex. In this paper, we address the question of how such optimal tests should be defined and how they can be found. We review different notions of power and how they relate to study goals, and also consider the requirements of type I error control and the nature of the procedures. This leads us to an explicit optimization problem with objective and constraints that describe its specific desiderata. We present a complete solution for deriving optimal procedures for two hypotheses, which have desired monotonicity properties, and are computationally simple. For some of the optimization formulations this yields optimal procedures that are identical to existing procedures, such as Hommel's procedure or the procedure of Bittman et al. (2009), while for other cases it yields completely novel and more powerful procedures than existing ones. We demonstrate the nature of our novel procedures and their improved power extensively in a simulation and on the APEX study (Cohen et al., 2016)., (© 2022 The Authors. Biometrics published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of International Biometric Society.)

Background: The intracluster correlation coefficient is a key input parameter for sample size determination in cluster-randomised trials. Sample size is very sensitive to small differences in the intracluster correlation coefficient, so it is vital to have a robust intracluster correlation coefficient estimate. This is often problematic because either a relevant intracluster correlation coefficient estimate is not available or the available estimate is imprecise due to being based on small-scale studies with low numbers of clusters. Misspecification may lead to an underpowered or inefficiently large and potentially unethical trial., Methods: We apply a Bayesian approach to produce an intracluster correlation coefficient estimate and hence propose sample size for a planned cluster-randomised trial of the effectiveness of a systematic voiding programme for post-stroke incontinence. A Bayesian hierarchical model is used to combine intracluster correlation coefficient estimates from other relevant trials making use of the wealth of intracluster correlation coefficient information available in published research. We employ knowledge elicitation process to assess the relevance of each intracluster correlation coefficient estimate to the planned trial setting. The team of expert reviewers assigned relevance weights to each study, and each outcome within the study, hence informing parameters of Bayesian modelling. To measure the performance of experts, agreement and reliability methods were applied., Results: The 34 intracluster correlation coefficient estimates extracted from 16 previously published trials were combined in the Bayesian hierarchical model using aggregated relevance weights elicited from the experts. The intracluster correlation coefficients available from external sources were used to construct a posterior distribution of the targeted intracluster correlation coefficient which was summarised as a posterior median with a 95% credible interval informing researchers about the range of plausible sample size values. The estimated intracluster correlation coefficient determined a sample size of between 450 (25 clusters) and 480 (20 clusters), compared to 500-600 from a classical approach. The use of quantiles, and other parameters, from the estimated posterior distribution is illustrated and the impact on sample size described., Conclusion: Accounting for uncertainty in an unknown intracluster correlation coefficient, trials can be designed with a more robust sample size. The approach presented provides the possibility of incorporating intracluster correlation coefficients from various cluster-randomised trial settings which can differ from the planned study, with the difference being accounted for in the modelling. By using expert knowledge to elicit relevance weights and synthesising the externally available intracluster correlation coefficient estimates, information is used more efficiently than in a classical approach, where the intracluster correlation coefficient estimates tend to be less robust and overly conservative. The intracluster correlation coefficient estimate constructed is likely to produce a smaller sample size on average than the conventional strategy of choosing a conservative intracluster correlation coefficient estimate. This may therefore result in substantial time and resources savings.

Pragmatic trials evaluating health care interventions often adopt cluster randomization due to scientific or logistical considerations. Systematic reviews have shown that coprimary endpoints are not uncommon in pragmatic trials but are seldom recognized in sample size or power calculations. While methods for power analysis based on K ( K ≥ 2 $K\ge 2$ ) binary coprimary endpoints are available for cluster randomized trials (CRTs), to our knowledge, methods for continuous coprimary endpoints are not yet available. Assuming a multivariate linear mixed model (MLMM) that accounts for multiple types of intraclass correlation coefficients among the observations in each cluster, we derive the closed-form joint distribution of K treatment effect estimators to facilitate sample size and power determination with different types of null hypotheses under equal cluster sizes. We characterize the relationship between the power of each test and different types of correlation parameters. We further relax the equal cluster size assumption and approximate the joint distribution of the K treatment effect estimators through the mean and coefficient of variation of cluster sizes. Our simulation studies with a finite number of clusters indicate that the predicted power by our method agrees well with the empirical power, when the parameters in the MLMM are estimated via the expectation-maximization algorithm. An application to a real CRT is presented to illustrate the proposed method., (© 2022 The Authors. Biometrics published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of International Biometric Society.)

In conceptual properties norming studies (CPNs), participants list properties that describe a set of concepts. From CPNs, many different parameters are calculated, such as semantic richness. A generally overlooked issue is that those values are only point estimates of the true unknown population parameters. In the present work, we present an R package that allows us to treat those values as population parameter estimates. Relatedly, a general practice in CPNs is using an equal number of participants who list properties for each concept (i.e., standardizing sample size). As we illustrate through examples, this procedure has negative effects on data's statistical analyses. Here, we argue that a better method is to standardize coverage (i.e., the proportion of sampled properties to the total number of properties that describe a concept), such that a similar coverage is achieved across concepts. When standardizing coverage rather than sample size, it is more likely that the set of concepts in a CPN all exhibit a similar representativeness. Moreover, by computing coverage the researcher can decide whether the CPN reached a sufficiently high coverage, so that its results might be generalizable to other studies. The R package we make available in the current work allows one to compute coverage and to estimate the necessary number of participants to reach a target coverage. We show this sampling procedure by using the R package on real and simulated CPN data., (© 2022. The Psychonomic Society, Inc.)

In a sequential hypothesis test, the analyst checks at multiple steps during data collection whether sufficient evidence has accrued to make a decision about the tested hypotheses. As soon as sufficient information has been obtained, data collection is terminated. Here, we compare two sequential hypothesis testing procedures that have recently been proposed for use in psychological research: Sequential Probability Ratio Test (SPRT; Psychological Methods, 25(2), 206-226, 2020) and the Sequential Bayes Factor Test (SBFT; Psychological Methods, 22(2), 322-339, 2017). We show that although the two methods have different philosophical roots, they share many similarities and can even be mathematically regarded as two instances of an overarching hypothesis testing framework. We demonstrate that the two methods use the same mechanisms for evidence monitoring and error control, and that differences in efficiency between the methods depend on the exact specification of the statistical models involved, as well as on the population truth. Our simulations indicate that when deciding on a sequential design within a unified sequential testing framework, researchers need to balance the needs of test efficiency, robustness against model misspecification, and appropriate uncertainty quantification. We provide guidance for navigating these design decisions based on individual preferences and simulation-based design analyses., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Studies with sensitive questions should include a sufficient number of respondents to adequately address the research interest. While studies with an inadequate number of respondents may not yield significant conclusions, studies with an excess of respondents become wasteful of investigators' budget. Therefore, it is an important step in survey sampling to determine the required number of participants. In this article, we derive sample size formulas based on confidence interval estimation of prevalence for four randomized response models, namely, the Warner's randomized response model, unrelated question model, item count technique model and cheater detection model. Specifically, our sample size formulas control, with a given assurance probability, the width of a confidence interval within the planned range. Simulation results demonstrate that all formulas are accurate in terms of empirical coverage probabilities and empirical assurance probabilities. All formulas are illustrated using a real-life application about the use of unethical tactics in negotiation., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

A three-arm non-inferiority trial including a test treatment, a reference treatment, and a placebo is recommended to assess the assay sensitivity and internal validity of a trial when applicable. Existing methods for designing and analyzing three-arm trials with binary endpoints are mainly developed from a frequentist viewpoint. However, these methods largely depend on large sample theories. To alleviate this problem, we propose two fully Bayesian approaches, the posterior variance approach and Bayes factor approach, to determine sample size required in a three-arm non-inferiority trial with binary endpoints. Simulation studies are conducted to investigate the performance of the proposed Bayesian methods. An example is illustrated by the proposed methodologies. Bayes factor method always leads to smaller sample sizes than the posterior variance method, utilizing the historical data can reduce the required sample size, simultaneous test requires more sample size to achieve the desired power than the non-inferiority test, the selection of the hyperparameters has a relatively large effect on the required sample size. When only controlling the posterior variance, the posterior variance criterion is a simple and effective option for obtaining a rough outcome. When conducting a previous clinical trial, it is recommended to use the Bayes factor criterion in practical applications.

Background: Stepped wedge cluster randomized trials enable rigorous evaluations of health intervention programs in pragmatic settings. In the present study, we aimed to update neurosurgeon scientists on the design of stepped wedge randomized trials., Methods: We have presented an overview of recent methodological developments for stepped wedge designs and included an update on the newer associated methodological tools to aid with future study designs., Results: We defined the stepped wedge trial design and reviewed the indications for the design in depth. In addition, key considerations, including mainstream methods of analysis and sample size determination, were discussed., Conclusions: Stepped wedge designs can be attractive for study intervention programs aiming to improve the delivery of patient care, especially when examining a small number of heterogeneous clusters., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The paper addresses estimating and testing treatment effects with multivariate outcomes in clinical trials where imperfect diagnostic devices are used to assign subjects to treatment groups. The paper focuses on the pre-post design and proposes two novel methods for estimating and testing treatment effects. In addition, methods for sample size and power calculations are developed. The methods are compared with each other and with a traditional method in a simulation study. The new methods show significant advantages in terms of power, coverage probability, and required sample size. The application of the methods is illustrated with data from electroencephalogram (EEG) recordings of alcoholic and control subjects., (© 2021 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Non-inferiority vaccine trials compare new candidates to active controls that provide clinically significant protection against a disease. Bayesian statistics allows to exploit pre-experimental information available from previous studies to increase precision and reduce costs. Here, historical knowledge is incorporated into the analysis through a power prior that dynamically regulates the degree of information-borrowing. We examine non-inferiority tests based on credible intervals for the unknown effects-difference between two vaccines on the log odds ratio scale, with an application to new Covid-19 vaccines. We explore the frequentist properties of the method and we address the sample size determination problem., (© 2022 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston.)

Background: Bayesian methods are increasing in popularity in clinical research. The design of Bayesian clinical trials requires a prior distribution, which can be elicited from experts. In diseases with international differences in management, the elicitation exercise should recruit internationally, making a face-to-face elicitation session expensive and more logistically challenging. Thus, we used a remote, real-time elicitation exercise to construct prior distributions. These elicited distributions were then used to determine the sample size of the Bronchiolitis in Infants with Placebo Versus Epinephrine and Dexamethasone (BIPED) study, an international randomised controlled trial in the Pediatric Emergency Research Network (PERN). The BIPED study aims to determine whether the combination of epinephrine and dexamethasone, compared to placebo, is effective in reducing hospital admission for infants presenting with bronchiolitis to the emergency department., Methods: We developed a Web-based tool to support the elicitation of the probability of hospitalisation for infants with bronchiolitis. Experts participated in online workshops to specify their individual prior distributions, which were aggregated using the equal-weighted linear pooling method. Experts were then invited to provide their comments on the aggregated distribution. The average length criterion determined the BIPED sample size., Results: Fifteen paediatric emergency medicine clinicians from Canada, the USA, Australia and New Zealand participated in three workshops to provide their elicited prior distributions. The mean elicited probability of admission for infants with bronchiolitis was slightly lower for those receiving epinephrine and dexamethasone compared to supportive care in the aggregate distribution. There were substantial differences in the individual beliefs but limited differences between North America and Australasia. From this aggregate distribution, a sample size of 410 patients per arm results in an average 95% credible interval length of less than 9% and a relative predictive power of 90%., Conclusion: Remote, real-time expert elicitation is a feasible, useful and practical tool to determine a prior distribution for international randomised controlled trials. Bayesian methods can then determine the trial sample size using these elicited prior distributions. The ease and low cost of remote expert elicitation mean that this approach is suitable for future international randomised controlled trials., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03567473., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

In Bayesian inference, prior distributions formalize preexperimental information and uncertainty on model parameters. Sometimes different sources of knowledge are available, possibly leading to divergent posterior distributions and inferences. Research has been recently devoted to the development of sample size criteria that guarantee agreement of posterior information in terms of credible intervals when multiple priors are available. In these articles, the goals of reaching consensus and evidence are typically kept separated. Adopting a Bayesian performance-based approach, the present article proposes new sample size criteria for superiority trials that jointly control the achievement of both minimal evidence and consensus, measured by appropriate functions of the posterior distributions. We develop both an average criterion and a more stringent criterion that accounts for the entire predictive distributions of the selected measures of minimal evidence and consensus. Methods are developed and illustrated via simulation for trials involving binary outcomes. A real clinical trial example on Covid-19 vaccine data is presented., (© 2021 Wiley-VCH GmbH.)

We address sampling design of population pharmacokinetics (popPK) experiments in the context of two ongoing phase 2b efficacy trials that evaluate the efficacy of VRC01 (vs. placebo) in reducing the rate of HIV infection among 4625 participants. Blood samples are collected at up to 22 study visits from all participants for immediate HIV diagnosis as the primary trial outcome, and stored for future outcome-dependent marker measurements. A key secondary objective of the trials is to evaluate correlates of prevention efficacy among a sub-cohort of VRC01 recipients in terms of whether the current value of VRC01 serum concentration is associated with the instantaneous rate of HIV infection. To accomplish this, concentrations on a daily grid are estimated via non-linear mixed effects popPK modeling of observed 4-weekly concentrations. Given the impracticality of measuring concentrations in all stored blood samples, we devised a simulation-based sampling design framework to evaluate the impact of sub-cohort sample sizes ( m ) and sampling schemes of time-points on the accuracy and precision of the popPK model parameters. We accounted for specific study schedules and heterogeneity in participants' characteristics and study adherence patterns. We found that with m = 120, reasonably unbiased and consistent estimates of most fixed and random effect terms could be obtained without complete sampling of all 22 time-points, even under low study adherence (about half of the 4-weekly visits missing per participant). The described simulation framework is not only novel in its application to popPK sampling design for studying correlates of prevention efficacy in a subcohort of the parent trial, but also flexible in accommodating real-life study setup options, and can be generalized to other single- or multiple-dose PK sampling design settings., Competing Interests: Disclosure statement No potential conflicts of interest were disclosed.

In this paper, we lay out the basic elements of Bayesian sample size determination (SSD) for the Bayesian design of a two-arm superiority clinical trial. We develop a flowchart of the Bayesian SSD that highlights the critical components of a Bayesian design and provides a practically useful roadmap for designing a Bayesian clinical trial in real world applications. We empirically examine the amount of borrowing, the choice of noninformative priors, and the impact of model misspecification on the Bayesian type I error and power. A formal and statistically rigorous formulation of conditional borrowing within the decision rule framework is developed. Moreover, by extending the partial borrowing power priors, a new borrowing-by-parts power prior for incorporating historical data is proposed. Computational algorithms are also developed to calculate the Bayesian type I error and power. Extensive simulation studies are carried out to explore the operating characteristics of the proposed Bayesian design of a superiority trial.

Specific plasma proteins serve as valuable markers for various diseases and are in many cases routinely measured in clinical laboratories by fully automated systems. For safe diagnostics and monitoring using these markers, it is important to ensure an analytical quality in line with clinical needs. For this purpose, information on the analytical and the biological variation of the measured plasma protein, also in the context of the discovery and validation of novel, disease protein biomarkers, is important, particularly in relation to for sample size calculations in clinical studies. Nevertheless, information on the biological variation of the majority of medium-to-high abundant plasma proteins is largely absent. In this study, we hypothesized that it is possible to generate data on inter-individual biological variation in combination with analytical variation of several hundred abundant plasma proteins, by applying LC-MS/MS in combination with relative quantification using isobaric tagging (10-plex TMT-labeling) to plasma samples. Using this analytical proteomic approach, we analyzed 42 plasma samples prepared in doublets, and estimated the technical, inter-individual biological, and total variation of 265 of the most abundant proteins present in human plasma thereby creating the prerequisites for power analysis and sample size determination in future clinical proteomics studies. Our results demonstrated that only five samples per group may provide sufficient statistical power for most of the analyzed proteins if relative changes in abundances >1.5-fold are expected. Seventeen of the measured proteins are present in the European Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (EFLM) Biological Variation Database, and demonstrated remarkably similar biological CV's to the corresponding CV's listed in the EFLM database suggesting that the generated proteomic determined variation knowledge is useful for large-scale determination of plasma protein variations.

Mediation analyses supply a principal lens to probe the pathways through which a treatment acts upon an outcome because they can dismantle and test the core components of treatments and test how these components function as a coordinated system or theory of action. Experimental evaluation of mediation effects in addition to total effects has become increasingly common but literature has developed only limited guidance on how to plan mediation studies with multi-tiered hierarchical or clustered structures. In this study, we provide methods for computing the power to detect mediation effects in three-level cluster-randomized designs that examine individual- (level one), intermediate- (level two) or cluster-level (level three) mediators. We assess the methods using a simulation and provide examples of a three-level clinic-randomized study (individuals nested within therapists nested within clinics) probing an individual-, intermediate- or cluster-level mediator using the R package PowerUpR and its Shiny application.

Bayesian statistics has been widely utilized as an approach that can incorporate prior knowledge into statistical inference. Tolerance intervals (TI) are the most commonly used statistical methods for product quality assurance. There are two main Bayesian approaches for calculating statistical tolerance intervals: Hamada and Wolfinger. A simulation-based approach was implemented to compare two-sided Wolfinger, Hamada, and frequentist tolerance intervals which control the probability content at a specified level of confidence. As sample sizes increase, compared to frequentist, Hamada TI become more conservative while Wolfinger TI are more liberal. To address this issue, we propose an empirical weighted Bayesian TI approach that is a compromise between Hamada and Wolfinger approaches. The proposed Bayesian TI result in narrower limits in certain scenarios while ensuring the confidence content coverage remains comparable to frequentist.

Conceptual properties norming studies (CPNs) ask participants to produce properties that describe concepts. From that data, different metrics may be computed (e.g., semantic richness, similarity measures), which are then used in studying concepts and as a source of carefully controlled stimuli for experimentation. Notwithstanding those metrics' demonstrated usefulness, researchers have customarily overlooked that they are only point estimates of the true unknown population values, and therefore, only rough approximations. Thus, though research based on CPN data may produce reliable results, those results are likely to be general and coarse-grained. In contrast, we suggest viewing CPNs as parameter estimation procedures, where researchers obtain only estimates of the unknown population parameters. Thus, more specific and fine-grained analyses must consider those parameters' variability. To this end, we introduce a probabilistic model from the field of ecology. Its related statistical expressions can be applied to compute estimates of CPNs' parameters and their corresponding variances. Furthermore, those expressions can be used to guide the sampling process. The traditional practice in CPN studies is to use the same number of participants across concepts, intuitively believing that practice will render the computed metrics comparable across concepts and CPNs. In contrast, the current work shows why an equal number of participants per concept is generally not desirable. Using CPN data, we show how to use the equations and discuss how they may allow more reasonable analyses and comparisons of parameter values among different concepts in a CPN, and across different CPNs.

In Bayesian analysis of clinical trials data, credible intervals are widely used for inference on unknown parameters of interest, such as treatment effects or differences in treatments effects. Highest Posterior Density (HPD) sets are often used because they guarantee the shortest length. In most of standard problems, closed-form expressions for exact HPD intervals do not exist, but they are available for intervals based on the normal approximation of the posterior distribution. For small sample sizes, approximate intervals may be not calibrated in terms of posterior probability, but for increasing sample sizes their posterior probability tends to the correct credible level and they become closer and closer to exact sets. The article proposes a predictive analysis to select appropriate sample sizes needed to have approximate intervals calibrated at a pre-specified level. Examples are given for interval estimation of proportions and log-odds.

In assessing biosimilarity between two products, the question to ask is always "How similar is similar?" Traditionally, the equivalence of the means between products is the primary consideration in a clinical trial. This study suggests an alternative assessment for testing a certain percentage of the population of differences lying within a prespecified interval. In doing so, the accuracy and precision are assessed simultaneously by judging whether a two-sided tolerance interval falls within a prespecified acceptance range. We further derive an asymptotic distribution of the tolerance limits to determine the sample size for achieving a targeted level of power. Our numerical study shows that the proposed two-sided tolerance interval test controls the type I error rate and provides sufficient power. A real example is presented to illustrate our proposed approach., (© 2020 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

This article investigates the homogeneity testing problem of binomial proportions for stratified partially validated data obtained by double-sampling method with two fallible classifiers. Several test procedures, including the weighted-least-squares test with/without log-transformation, logit-transformation and double log-transformation, and likelihood ratio test and score test, are developed to test the homogeneity under two models, distinguished by conditional independence assumption of two classifiers. Simulation results show that score test performs better than other tests in the sense that the empirical size is generally controlled around the nominal level, and hence be recommended to practical applications. Other tests also perform well when both binomial proportions and sample sizes are not small. Approximate sample sizes based on score test, likelihood ratio test and the weighted-least-squares test with double log-transformation are generally accurate in terms of the empirical power and type I error rate with the estimated sample sizes, and hence be recommended. An example from the malaria study is illustrated by the proposed methodologies.

The feasibility of a new clinical trial may be increased by incorporating historical data of previous trials. In the particular case where only data from a single historical trial are available, there exists no clear recommendation in the literature regarding the most favorable approach. A main problem of the incorporation of historical data is the possible inflation of the type I error rate. A way to control this type of error is the so-called power prior approach. This Bayesian method does not "borrow" the full historical information but uses a parameter 0 ≤ δ ≤ 1 to determine the amount of borrowed data. Based on the methodology of the power prior, we propose a frequentist framework that allows incorporation of historical data from both arms of two-armed trials with binary outcome, while simultaneously controlling the type I error rate. It is shown that for any specific trial scenario a value δ > 0 can be determined such that the type I error rate falls below the prespecified significance level. The magnitude of this value of δ depends on the characteristics of the data observed in the historical trial. Conditionally on these characteristics, an increase in power as compared to a trial without borrowing may result. Similarly, we propose methods how the required sample size can be reduced. The results are discussed and compared to those obtained in a Bayesian framework. Application is illustrated by a clinical trial example., (© 2020 The Authors. Pharmaceutical Statistics published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) provide important data to guide clinical decisions. Publication bias may limit the applicability of RCTs because many clinical investigators prefer to submit and journals more selectively accept studies with positive results. The authors tested the hypothesis that positive RCTs published in the Journal of Cardiothoracic and Vascular Anesthesia were more likely to be associated with factors known to predict publication of positive versus negative RCTs in other journals. This observational study was an internet analysis of all issues of Journal of Cardiothoracic and Vascular Anesthesia from 2004-2018. Each issue was searched to identify human RCTs. The numbers of centers and enrolled patients in each RCT were tabulated. The corresponding author determined the country of origin (United States v international). A trial was "positive" or "negative" based on rejection or confirmation of the null hypothesis, respectively, for the primary outcome variable or the majority of measured outcomes if a primary outcome was not identified. The presence or absence of a hypothesis, randomization methodology, sample size calculation, and blinded research design was recorded. Registration in a public database, Consolidated Statements of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) guideline compliance, and the source of funding also were determined. The number of citations for each RCT was determined by using Google Scholar; the citation rate was calculated as the ratio of the number of total citations and the duration in years since the trial's original publication. A total of 296 RCTs were identified, of which 58.8% reported positive results. Most RCTs were single center, relatively small, and international in origin. Total citations/RCT decreased over time, but citations/year did not. The percentage of RCTs that identified a randomization method, were registered, or followed CONSORT guidelines increased in a time-dependent manner. No differences in any factors associated with publication of RCTs were observed when positive and negative trials were compared. The Journal of Cardiothoracic and Vascular Anesthesia publishes more positive than negative RCTs, but factors that have been previously associated with RCT publication in other journals were similar between groups., (Published by Elsevier Inc.)

As described in the ICH E5 guidelines, a bridging study is an additional study executed in a new geographical region or subpopulation to link or "build a bridge" from global clinical trial outcomes to the new region. The regulatory and scientific goals of a bridging study is to evaluate potential subpopulation differences while minimizing duplication of studies and meeting unmet medical needs expeditiously. Use of historical data (borrowing) from global studies is an attractive approach to meet these conflicting goals. Here, we propose a practical and relevant approach to guide the optimal borrowing rate (percent of subjects in earlier studies) and the number of subjects in the new regional bridging study. We address the limitations in global/regional exchangeability through use of a Bayesian power prior method and then optimize bridging study design with a return on investment viewpoint. The method is demonstrated using clinical data from global and Japanese trials in dapagliflozin for type 2 diabetes., (© 2019 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

Traditionally, asymptotic tests are studied and applied under local alternative (Aivazian, et al., 1985). There exists a widespread opinion that the Wald, likelihood ratio, and score tests are asymptotically equivalent. We dispel this myth by showing that These tests have different statistical power in the presence of nuisance parameters. The local properties of the tests are described in terms of the first and second derivative evaluated at the null hypothesis. The comparison of the tests are illustrated with two popular regression models: linear regression with random predictor and logistic regression with binary covariate. We study the aberrant behavior of the tests when the distance between the null and alternative does not vanish with the sample size. We demonstrate that these tests have different asymptotic power. In particular, the score test is generally asymptotically biased but slightly superior for linear regression in a close neighborhood of the null. The power approximations are confirmed through simulations.

A disease prevalence can be estimated by classifying subjects according to whether they have the disease. When gold-standard tests are too expensive to be applied to all subjects, partially validated data can be obtained by double-sampling in which all individuals are classified by a fallible classifier, and some of individuals are validated by the gold-standard classifier. However, it could happen in practice that such infallible classifier does not available. In this article, we consider two models in which both classifiers are fallible and propose four asymptotic test procedures for comparing disease prevalence in two groups. Corresponding sample size formulae and validated ratio given the total sample sizes are also derived and evaluated. Simulation results show that (i) Score test performs well and the corresponding sample size formula is also accurate in terms of the empirical power and size in two models; (ii) the Wald test based on the variance estimator with parameters estimated under the null hypothesis outperforms the others even under small sample sizes in Model II, and the sample size estimated by this test is also accurate; (iii) the estimated validated ratios based on all tests are accurate. The malarial data are used to illustrate the proposed methodologies., Competing Interests: No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors., (© 2019 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.)

Many sample size criteria exist. These include power calculations and methods based on confidence interval widths from a frequentist viewpoint, and Bayesian methods based on credible interval widths or decision theory. Bayesian methods account for the inherent uncertainty of inputs to sample size calculations through the use of prior information rather than the point estimates typically used by frequentist methods. However, the choice of prior density can be problematic because there will almost always be different appreciations of the past evidence. Such differences can be accommodated a priori by robust methods for Bayesian design, for example, using mixtures or ϵ-contaminated priors. This would then ensure that the prior class includes divergent opinions. However, one may prefer to report several posterior densities arising from a "community of priors," which cover the range of plausible prior densities, rather than forming a single class of priors. To date, however, there are no corresponding sample size methods that specifically account for a community of prior densities in the sense of ensuring a large-enough sample size for the data to sufficiently overwhelm the priors to ensure consensus across widely divergent prior views. In this paper, we develop methods that account for the variability in prior opinions by providing the sample size required to induce posterior agreement to a prespecified degree. Prototypic examples to one- and two-sample binomial outcomes are included. We compare sample sizes from criteria that consider a family of priors to those that would result from previous interval-based Bayesian criteria., (© 2019 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

Aims: Bioequivalence (BE) trials aim to demonstrate that the 90% confidence interval of the T/R-ratio of the pharmacokinetic metrics between two formulations (test [T] and reference [R]) of a drug is fully included in the acceptance interval [0.80, 1.25]. Traditionally, the sample size of BE trials is based on a power calculation based on the intrasubject variability coefficient of variation (CV) and the T/R-ratio of the metrics. Since the exact value of the T/R-ratio is not known prior to the trial, it is often assumed that the difference between the treatments does not exceed 5%. Hence, uncertainty about the T/R-ratio is expressed by using a fixed value for the sample size calculation. We propose to characterise the uncertainty about the T/R-ratio by a (normal) distribution for the log(T/R-ratio), with an assumed mean of  log θ = 0.00 (i.e. θ = 1.00) and a standard deviation σ u , which quantifies the uncertainty. Evaluating this distribution leads to the statistical assurance of the BE trial., Methods: The assurance of a clinical trial can be derived by integrating the power over the distribution of the input parameters, in this case, the assumed distribution of the log(T/R)-ratio. Because it is an average power, the assurance can be interpreted as a measure of the probability of success that does not depend on a specific assumed value for the log(T/R)-ratio. The relationship between power and assurance will be analysed by comparing the numerical outcomes., Results: Using the assurance concept, values of the standard deviation for the distribution of potential log(T/R)-ratios can be chosen to reflect the magnitude of uncertainty. For most practical cases (i.e. when 0.95 ≤ θ ≤ 1.05), the sample size is not, or only slightly, changed when σ = |log(θ)|., Conclusion: The advantage of deriving the assurance for BE trials is that uncertainty is directly expressed as a parameter of variability., (© 2019 The British Pharmacological Society.)

Multiregional clinical trials have been accepted in recent years as a useful means of accelerating the development of new drugs and abridging their approval time. The statistical properties of multiregional clinical trials are being widely discussed. In practice, variance of a continuous response may be different from region to region, but it leads to the assessment of the efficacy response falling into a Behrens-Fisher problem-there is no exact testing or interval estimator for mean difference with unequal variances. As a solution, this study applies interval estimations of the efficacy response based on Howe's, Cochran-Cox's, and Satterthwaite's approximations, which have been shown to have well-controlled type I error rates. However, the traditional sample size determination cannot be applied to the interval estimators. The sample size determination to achieve a desired power based on these interval estimators is then presented. Moreover, the consistency criteria suggested by the Japanese Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare guidance to decide whether the overall results from the multiregional clinical trial obtained via the proposed interval estimation were also applied. A real example is used to illustrate the proposed method. The results of simulation studies indicate that the proposed method can correctly determine the required sample size and evaluate the assurance probability of the consistency criteria.

We consider the problem of Bayesian sample size determination for a clinical trial in the presence of historical data that inform the treatment effect. Our broadly applicable, simulation-based methodology provides a framework for calibrating the informativeness of a prior while simultaneously identifying the minimum sample size required for a new trial such that the overall design has appropriate power to detect a non-null treatment effect and reasonable type I error control. We develop a comprehensive strategy for eliciting null and alternative sampling prior distributions which are used to define Bayesian generalizations of the traditional notions of type I error control and power. Bayesian type I error control requires that a weighted-average type I error rate not exceed a prespecified threshold. We develop a procedure for generating an appropriately sized Bayesian hypothesis test using a simple partial-borrowing power prior which summarizes the fraction of information borrowed from the historical trial. We present results from simulation studies that demonstrate that a hypothesis test procedure based on this simple power prior is as efficient as those based on more complicated meta-analytic priors, such as normalized power priors or robust mixture priors, when all are held to precise type I error control requirements. We demonstrate our methodology using a real data set to design a follow-up clinical trial with time-to-event endpoint for an investigational treatment in high-risk melanoma., (© The Author(s) 2018. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

In pediatric drug development, large amounts of adult data are often available before the start of a pediatric study. It is believed that borrowing this information will improve the efficiency. However, when adult information is not sufficiently similar to that of pediatrics, incorporating adult data will introduce bias and consequently result in efficiency loss. A Bayesian alternative-namely, commensurate prior approach where the level of information borrowing is based on the concordance of adult and pediatric data-was investigated. Simulation results indicate that the commensurate prior approach, in general, provides a balanced and robust trade-off between bias and efficiency gain. The benefit of this approach was quantified in terms of sample size savings, and recommended sample sizes are provided., (© 2019, The American College of Clinical Pharmacology.)

Multilevel mediation analyses play an essential role in helping researchers develop, probe, and refine theories of action underlying interventions and document how interventions impact outcomes. However, little is known about how to plan studies with sufficient power to detect such multilevel mediation effects. In this study, we describe how to prospectively estimate power and identify sufficient sample sizes for experiments intended to detect multilevel mediation effects. We outline a simple approach to estimate the power to detect mediation effects with individual- or cluster-level mediators using summary statistics easily obtained from empirical literature and the anticipated magnitude of the mediation effect. We draw on a running example to illustrate several different types of mediation and provide an accessible introduction to the design of multilevel mediation studies. The power formulas are implemented in the R package PowerUpR and the PowerUp software ( causalevaluation.org ).

Double sampling is usually applied to collect necessary information for situations in which an infallible classifier is available for validating a subset of the sample that has already been classified by a fallible classifier. Inference procedures have previously been developed based on the partially validated data obtained by the double-sampling process. However, it could happen in practice that such infallible classifier or gold standard does not exist. In this article, we consider the case in which both classifiers are fallible and propose asymptotic and approximate unconditional test procedures based on six test statistics for a population proportion and five approximate sample size formulas based on the recommended test procedures under two models. Our results suggest that both asymptotic and approximate unconditional procedures based on the score statistic perform satisfactorily for small to large sample sizes and are highly recommended. When sample size is moderate or large, asymptotic procedures based on the Wald statistic with the variance being estimated under the null hypothesis, likelihood rate statistic, log- and logit-transformation statistics based on both models generally perform well and are hence recommended. The approximate unconditional procedures based on the log-transformation statistic under Model I, Wald statistic with the variance being estimated under the null hypothesis, log- and logit-transformation statistics under Model II are recommended when sample size is small. In general, sample size formulae based on the Wald statistic with the variance being estimated under the null hypothesis, likelihood rate statistic and score statistic are recommended in practical applications. The applicability of the proposed methods is illustrated by a real-data example.

In this paper, we develop a general Bayesian clinical trial design methodology, tailored for time-to-event trials with a cured fraction in scenarios where a previously completed clinical trial is available to inform the design and analysis of the new trial. Our methodology provides a conceptually appealing and computationally feasible framework that allows one to construct a fixed, maximally informative prior a priori while simultaneously identifying the minimum sample size required for the new trial so that the design has high power and reasonable type I error control from a Bayesian perspective. This strategy is particularly well suited for scenarios where adaptive borrowing approaches are not practical due to the nature of the trial, complexity of the model, or the source of the prior information. Control of a Bayesian type I error rate offers a sensible balance between wanting to use high-quality information in the design and analysis of future trials while still controlling type I errors in an equitable way. Moreover, sample size determination based on our Bayesian view of power can lead to a more adequately sized trial by virtue of taking into account all the uncertainty in the treatment effect. We demonstrate our methodology by designing a cancer clinical trial in high-risk melanoma., (© 2018 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

We developed a Bayes factor based approach for the design of non-inferiority clinical trials with a focus on controlling type I error and power. Historical data are incorporated in the Bayesian design via the power prior discussed in Ibrahim and Chen (2000). The properties of the proposed method are examined in detail. An efficient simulation-based computational algorithm is developed to calculate the Bayes factor, type I error and power. The proposed methodology is applied to the design of a non-inferiority medical device clinical trial.

Background: Sample size planning for longitudinal data is crucial when designing mediation studies because sufficient statistical power is not only required in grant applications and peer-reviewed publications, but is essential to reliable research results. However, sample size determination is not straightforward for mediation analysis of longitudinal design., Methods: To facilitate planning the sample size for longitudinal mediation studies with a multilevel mediation model, this article provides the sample size required to achieve 80% power by simulations under various sizes of the mediation effect, within-subject correlations and numbers of repeated measures. The sample size calculation is based on three commonly used mediation tests: Sobel's method, distribution of product method and the bootstrap method., Results: Among the three methods of testing the mediation effects, Sobel's method required the largest sample size to achieve 80% power. Bootstrapping and the distribution of the product method performed similarly and were more powerful than Sobel's method, as reflected by the relatively smaller sample sizes. For all three methods, the sample size required to achieve 80% power depended on the value of the ICC (i.e., within-subject correlation). A larger value of ICC typically required a larger sample size to achieve 80% power. Simulation results also illustrated the advantage of the longitudinal study design. The sample size tables for most encountered scenarios in practice have also been published for convenient use., Conclusions: Extensive simulations study showed that the distribution of the product method and bootstrapping method have superior performance to the Sobel's method, but the product method was recommended to use in practice in terms of less computation time load compared to the bootstrapping method. A R package has been developed for the product method of sample size determination in mediation longitudinal study design.

Statistical thinking is crucial for studies in medical and biomedical areas. There are several pitfalls of using statistics in these areas involving in experimental design, data collection, data analysis and data interpretation. This review paper describes basic statistical design problems in biomedical or medical studies and directs the basic scientists to better use of statistical thinking. The contents of this paper were based on previous literatures and our daily basic support work. It includes the sample size determination and sample allocation in experimental design stage, numerical and graphical data summarization, and statistical test methods as well as the related common errors at design and analytic stages. Literatures and our daily support works show that misunderstanding and misusing of statistical concept and statistical test methods are significant problems. These may include ignoring the sample size and data distribution, incorrect summarization measurement, wrong statistical test methods especially for repeated measures, ignoring the assumption for t-test or ANOVA test, failing to perform the adjustment for multiple comparison. This review intends to help the researchers in basic medical or biomedical areas to enhance statistical thinking and make fewer errors in study design and analysis of their studies., Competing Interests: None.

Although the sample size for simple logistic regression can be readily determined using currently available methods, the sample size calculation for multiple logistic regression requires some additional information, such as the coefficient of determination ([Formula: see text]) of a covariate of interest with other covariates, which is often unavailable in practice. The response variable of logistic regression follows a logit-normal distribution which can be generated from a logistic transformation of a normal distribution. Using this property of logistic regression, we propose new methods of determining the sample size for simple and multiple logistic regressions using a normal transformation of outcome measures. Simulation studies and a motivating example show several advantages of the proposed methods over the existing methods: (i) no need for [Formula: see text] for multiple logistic regression, (ii) available interim or group-sequential designs, and (iii) much smaller required sample size.

In 1992, the US Food and Drug Administration declared that two drugs demonstrate average bioequivalence (ABE) if the log-transformed mean difference of pharmacokinetic responses lies in (-0.223, 0.223). The most widely used approach for assessing ABE is the two one-sided tests procedure. More specifically, ABE is concluded when a 100(1 - 2α) % confidence interval for mean difference falls within (-0.223, 0.223). As known, bioequivalent studies are usually conducted by crossover design. However, in the case that the half-life of a drug is long, a parallel design for the bioequivalent study may be preferred. In this study, a two-sided interval estimation - such as Satterthwaite's, Cochran-Cox's, or Howe's approximations - is used for assessing parallel ABE. We show that the asymptotic joint distribution of the lower and upper confidence limits is bivariate normal, and thus the sample size can be calculated based on the asymptotic power so that the confidence interval falls within (-0.223, 0.223). Simulation studies also show that the proposed method achieves sufficient empirical power. A real example is provided to illustrate the proposed method. Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., (Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

Behavioral and psychological researchers have shown strong interests in investigating contextual effects (i.e., the influences of combinations of individual- and group-level predictors on individual-level outcomes). The present research provides generalized formulas for determining the sample size needed in investigating contextual effects according to the desired level of statistical power as well as width of confidence interval. These formulas are derived within a three-level random intercept model that includes one predictor/contextual variable at each level to simultaneously cover various kinds of contextual effects that researchers can show interest. The relative influences of indices included in the formulas on the standard errors of contextual effects estimates are investigated with the aim of further simplifying sample size determination procedures. In addition, simulation studies are performed to investigate finite sample behavior of calculated statistical power, showing that estimated sample sizes based on derived formulas can be both positively and negatively biased due to complex effects of unreliability of contextual variables, multicollinearity, and violation of assumption regarding the known variances. Thus, it is advisable to compare estimated sample sizes under various specifications of indices and to evaluate its potential bias, as illustrated in the example.

Cross-sectional prevalent cohort design has drawn considerable interests in the studies of association between risk factors and time-to-event outcome. The sampling scheme in such design gives rise to length-biased data that require specialized analysis strategy but can improve study efficiency. The power and sample size calculation methods are however lacking for studies with prevalent cohort design, and using the formula developed for traditional survival data may overestimate sample size. We derive the sample size formulas that are appropriate for the design of cross-sectional prevalent cohort studies, under the assumptions of exponentially distributed event time and uniform follow-up for cross-sectional prevalent cohort design. We perform numerical and simulation studies to compare the sample size requirements for achieving the same power between prevalent cohort and incident cohort designs. We also use a large prospective prevalent cohort study to demonstrate the procedure. Using rigorous designs and proper analysis tools, the prospective prevalent cohort design can be more efficient than the incident cohort design with the same total sample sizes and study durations.