Determining sample size when assessing mean equivalence

被引:4
|
作者
Asberg, Arne [1 ]
Solem, Kristine B. [1 ]
Mikkelsen, Gustav [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Trondheim Hosp, Dept Clin Chem, N-7006 Trondheim, Norway
关键词
Chemistry techniques; analytical/methods; quality control; reproducibility of results; sample size; systematic bias;
D O I
10.3109/00365513.2014.953993
中图分类号
R-3 [医学研究方法]; R3 [基础医学];
学科分类号
1001 ;
摘要
Background. When we want to assess whether two analytical methods are equivalent, we could test if the difference between the mean results is within the specification limits of 0 +/- an acceptance criterion. Testing the null hypothesis of zero difference is less interesting, and so is the sample size estimation based on testing that hypothesis. Power function curves for equivalence testing experiments are not widely available. In this paper we present power function curves to help decide on the number of measurements when testing equivalence between the means of two analytical methods. Methods. Computer simulation was used to calculate the probability that the 90% confidence interval for the difference between the means of two analytical methods would exceed the specification limits of 0 +/- 1, 0 +/- 2 or 0 +/- 3 analytical standard deviations (SDa), respectively. Results. The probability of getting a nonequivalence alarm increases with increasing difference between the means when the difference is well within the specification limits. The probability increases with decreasing sample size and with smaller acceptance criteria. We may need at least 40-50 measurements with each analytical method when the specification limits are 0 +/- 1 SDa, and 10-15 and 5-10 when the specification limits are 0 +/- 2 and 0 +/- 3 SDa, respectively. Conclusions. The power function curves provide information of the probability of false alarm, so that we can decide on the sample size under less uncertainty.
引用
收藏
页码:713 / 715
页数:3
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [41] Letter in response to: “The importance of clinical importance when determining the target difference in sample size calculations”
    Hubert Wong
    Trials, 24 (1)
  • [42] Determining Sample Size With a Given Range of Mean Effects in One-Way Heteroscedastic Analysis of Variance
    Shieh, Gwowen
    Jan, Show-Li
    JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL EDUCATION, 2013, 81 (03): : 281 - 294
  • [43] On the Deficiency of the Sample Median When the Sample Size is Random
    Bening, V. E.
    Korolev, Victor
    Zeifman, Alexander
    PROCEEDINGS OF THE INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON NUMERICAL ANALYSIS AND APPLIED MATHEMATICS 2016 (ICNAAM-2016), 2017, 1863
  • [44] Sample Size Adjustment in Clinical Trials for Proving Equivalence
    Tim Friede
    Meinhard Kieser
    Drug information journal : DIJ / Drug Information Association, 2001, 35 : 1401 - 1408
  • [45] A BAYESIAN METHOD FOR THE CHOICE OF THE SAMPLE SIZE IN EQUIVALENCE TRIALS
    Gubbiotti, Stefania
    De Santis, Fulvio
    AUSTRALIAN & NEW ZEALAND JOURNAL OF STATISTICS, 2011, 53 (04) : 443 - 460
  • [46] Sample Size Determination for Equivalence Assessment with Multiple Endpoints
    Sun, Anna
    Dong, Xiaoyu
    Tsong, Yi
    JOURNAL OF BIOPHARMACEUTICAL STATISTICS, 2014, 24 (06) : 1203 - 1214
  • [47] Sample size adjustment in clinical trials for proving equivalence
    Friede, T
    Kieser, M
    DRUG INFORMATION JOURNAL, 2001, 35 (04): : 1401 - 1408
  • [48] Sample size calculations for risk equivalence testing in pharmacoepidemiology
    Tubert-Bitter, P
    Manfredi, R
    Lellouch, J
    Bégaud, B
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2000, 53 (12) : 1268 - 1274
  • [49] Power and sample size determination when assessing the clinical relevance of trial results by 'responder analyses'
    Kieser, M
    Röhmel, J
    Friede, T
    STATISTICS IN MEDICINE, 2004, 23 (21) : 3287 - 3305
  • [50] SAMPLE SIZE DETERMINATION FOR REGRESSION ESTIMATE OF MEAN
    TENENBEIN, A
    BIOMETRICS, 1974, 30 (04) : 709 - 716