Section C. Sample Size Determination for Comparing Two Proportions

Similar documents
Section F. Measures of Association: Risk Difference, Relative Risk, and the Odds Ratio

Section B. Variability in the Normal Distribution: Calculating Normal Scores

Section D. Another Non-Randomized Study Design: The Case-Control Design

Comparing Proportions between Two Independent Populations. John McGready Johns Hopkins University

Comparing Means among Two (or More) Independent Populations. John McGready Johns Hopkins University

Confounding and Effect Modification. John McGready Johns Hopkins University

Section G. Comparing Means between More than Two Independent Populations

Comparing Proportions between Two Independent Populations. John McGready Johns Hopkins University

Proposal Writing. Lynda Burton, ScD Johns Hopkins University

Describing Data: Part I. John McGready Johns Hopkins University

Statistics for Psychosocial Research Lecturer: William Eaton

Study Designs. Lecture 3. Kevin Frick

[Source: Freedman, Pisani, Purves (1998) Statistics, 3rd ed., Ch 2.]

Experimental design. Basic principles

The Impact of Pandemic Influenza on Public Health

Evaluation and Assessment of Health Policy. Gerard F. Anderson, PhD Johns Hopkins University

Health Issues for Aging Populations

Section D. Genes whose Mutation can lead to Initiation

Section H. Case Study: Risk Assessment Issues Associated with Chloroform

Section B. Self-Regulation, Attention, and Problem Solving

Alcohol. Gordon Smith, MD (MB, ChB Otago), MPH Professor University of Maryland National Study Center for Trauma and EMS

How to Choose the Wrong Model. Scott L. Zeger Department of Biostatistics Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School

Epidemiology of Diarrheal Diseases. Robert Black, MD, MPH Johns Hopkins University

Proteins and Amino Acids. Benjamin Caballero, MD, PhD Johns Hopkins University

Epidemiologic Methods for Evaluating Screening Programs. Rosa M. Crum, MD, MHS Johns Hopkins University

Severe Mental Disorders. Etheldreda Nakimuli-Mpungu, MMed (Psych), MBChB Johns Hopkins University

Costing in Vaccine Planning and Programming

Economic Evaluation. Introduction to Economic Evaluation

Meanings of medications, metonymy. Peter Winch. Health Behavior Change at the Individual, Household and Community Levels

Justice in Research Ethics: International Issues. Nancy E. Kass, ScD Johns Hopkins University

Monitoring and Evaluation IN ACTION! Duff Gillespie

En & IH Engineering Aspects of Public Health Crises. Quiz 1

Breast Cancer Basics. Clinical Oncology for Public Health Professionals. Ben Ho Park, MD, PhD

TB Epidemiology. Richard E. Chaisson, MD Johns Hopkins University Center for Tuberculosis Research

Introduction, Nosology, and History. William W. Eaton, PhD Johns Hopkins University

Critical Analysis of Popular Diets and Supplements

Measurement of Psychopathology in Populations. William W. Eaton, PhD Johns Hopkins University

STD Epidemiology. Jonathan Zenilman, MD Johns Hopkins University

The Nutrition Transition

Section C. Biomarkers of Early Biological Effect and Altered Structure and Function

Epidemiology of Mood Disorders II: Analytic Epidemiology and the Search for Etiologic Clues. William W. Eaton, PhD Johns Hopkins University

Changing People s Behavior. Larry Wissow Professor Health, Behavior and Society Johns Hopkins School of Public Health

Lecture 3: Digestion and Dieting Physiology

DECISION QUALITY WORKSHEET TREATMENTS FOR DEPRESSION

Social Capital. Ginny Tedrow. Health Behavior Change at the Individual, Household and Community Levels

New Drug Targets. Sean T. Prigge, PhD

Master Class: Fundamentals of Lung Cancer

Defining Mental Disorders. Judy Bass, MPH, PhD Johns Hopkins University

Economic Evaluation. Defining the Scope of a Costeffectiveness

2018 OPTIONS FOR INDIVIDUAL MEASURES: REGISTRY ONLY. MEASURE TYPE: Outcome

Post Procedural Care

Salt Iodization in Haiti: Challenges to Improving Salt Production Quality and Recommendations for Pursuing Iodization

STI Prevention: Housekeeping and How We Use Public Health. M. Terry Hogan, MPH Johns Hopkins University

2017 OPTIONS FOR INDIVIDUAL MEASURES: REGISTRY ONLY. MEASURE TYPE: Process

2017 OPTIONS FOR INDIVIDUAL MEASURES: REGISTRY ONLY. MEASURE TYPE: Process

Quality ID #113 (NQF 0034): Colorectal Cancer Screening National Quality Strategy Domain: Effective Clinical Care

Measure #112 (NQF 2372): Breast Cancer Screening National Quality Strategy Domain: Effective Clinical Care

2018 OPTIONS FOR INDIVIDUAL MEASURES: REGISTRY ONLY. MEASURE TYPE: Process

DENOMINATOR: All patients undergoing anterior or apical pelvic organ prolapse (POP) surgery

Measure #250 (NQF 1853): Radical Prostatectomy Pathology Reporting National Quality Strategy Domain: Effective Clincial Care

Section C. Intrinsic and Extrinsic Influences on Infant and Early Childhood Regulatory Development

The Impact of Pandemic Influenza on Public Health

Measurement. Different terminology. Marketing managers work with abstractions. Different terminology. Different terminology.

2017 OPTIONS FOR INDIVIDUAL MEASURES: REGISTRY ONLY. MEASURE TYPE: Process

Importance of Cell Stock Concentration for Accurate Target Cell Recovery

Quality ID #225 (NQF 0509): Radiology: Reminder System for Screening Mammograms National Quality Strategy Domain: Communication and Care Coordination

DENOMINATOR: All patients undergoing anterior or apical pelvic organ prolapse (POP) surgery

2017 OPTIONS FOR INDIVIDUAL MEASURES: CLAIMS ONLY. MEASURE TYPE: Process

Measure #69 (NQF 0380): Hematology: Multiple Myeloma: Treatment with Bisphosphonates National Quality Strategy Domain: Effective Clinical Care

2018 OPTIONS FOR INDIVIDUAL MEASURES: REGISTRY ONLY. MEASURE TYPE: Process

DESCRIPTION: Percentage of women years of age who had a mammogram to screen for breast cancer

Quality ID #112 (NQF 2372): Breast Cancer Screening National Quality Strategy Domain: Effective Clinical Care

Measure #111 (NQF 0043): Pneumonia Vaccination Status for Older Adults National Quality Strategy Domain: Community/Population Health

DENOMINATOR: All patients aged 18 years and older with a diagnosis of chronic hepatitis C cirrhosis

DENOMINATOR: All female patients aged 65 years and older with a visit during the measurement period

GUIDANCE FOR SAMPLING ART CLINICS IN COUNTRIES COMBINING SURVEILLANCE OF PRE-TREATMENT HIV DRUG RESISTANCE AND ACQUIRED HIV DRUG RESISTANCE AT 12 AND

Homework Exercises for PSYC 3330: Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences

Measure #111 (NQF 0043): Pneumococcal Vaccination Status for Older Adults National Quality Strategy Domain: Community/Population Health

DENOMINATOR: All female patients aged 65 years and older with a visit during the measurement period

DENOMINATOR: All female patients aged 65 years and older with a visit during the measurement period

DESCRIPTION: Percentage of new patients whose biopsy results have been reviewed and communicated to the primary care/referring physician and patient

DENOMINATOR: All patients aged 18 years and older with a diagnosis of chronic hepatitis C cirrhosis

Measure #404: Anesthesiology Smoking Abstinence National Quality Strategy Domain: Effective Clinical Care

Quality ID #113 (NQF 0034): Colorectal Cancer Screening National Quality Strategy Domain: Effective Clinical Care

DESCRIPTION: Percentage of final reports for screening mammograms that are classified as probably benign

2019 COLLECTION TYPE: MIPS CLINICAL QUALITY MEASURES (CQMS) MEASURE TYPE: Patient Reported Outcome High Priority

DENOMINATOR: All patients, regardless of age, with a diagnosis of inflammatory bowel disease who initiated an anti-tnf agent

Measure #265: Biopsy Follow-Up National Quality Strategy Domain: Communication and Care Coordination

NUMERATOR: Reports that include the pt category, the pn category and the histologic grade

2017 OPTIONS FOR INDIVIDUAL MEASURES: REGISTRY ONLY. MEASURE TYPE: Process

DESCRIPTION: Percentage of final reports for screening mammograms that are classified as probably benign

2018 OPTIONS FOR INDIVIDUAL MEASURES: REGISTRY ONLY. MEASURE TYPE: Process

2017 OPTIONS FOR INDIVIDUAL MEASURES: CLAIMS ONLY. MEASURE TYPE: Process

Quality ID #265: Biopsy Follow-Up National Quality Strategy Domain: Communication and Care Coordination

DENOMINATOR: All female patients aged 65 years and older with a diagnosis of urinary incontinence

2019 COLLECTION TYPE: MIPS CLINICAL QUALITY MEASURES (CQMS) MEASURE TYPE: Process

Measure #155 (NQF: 0101): Falls: Plan of Care National Quality Strategy Domain: Communication and Care Coordination

Michael J. McQuestion, PhD, MPH Johns Hopkins University. Measurement Concepts and Introduction to Problem Solving

Measure #265: Biopsy Follow-Up National Quality Strategy Domain: Communication and Care Coordination

Transcription:

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike License. Your use of this material constitutes acceptance of that license and the conditions of use of materials on this site. Copyright 2009, The Johns Hopkins University and John McGready. All rights reserved. Use of these materials permitted only in accordance with license rights granted. Materials provided AS IS ; no representations or warranties provided. User assumes all responsibility for use, and all liability related thereto, and must independently review all materials for accuracy and efficacy. May contain materials owned by others. User is responsible for obtaining permissions for use from third parties as needed.

Section C Sample Size Determination for Comparing Two Proportions

Power for Comparing Two Proportions Same ideas as with comparing means 3

Pilot Study We can find the necessary sample size(s) of this study if we specify the following: α-level of test Specific values for p 1 and p 2 (specific H A ) and hence d = p 1 - p 2 : this usually represents the minimum scientific difference of interest The desired power 4

Pilot Study Given this information, we can use Stata to do the sample size calculation sampsi command Command syntax (items in italics are numbers to be supplied by researcher) sampsi p 1 p 2, alpha(α) power(power) 5

Another Example Two drugs for treatment of peptic ulcer compared (Familiari, et al. [1981]) The percentage of ulcers healed by pirenzepine (drug A) and trithiozine (drug B) was 77% and 58% based on 30 and 31 patients respectively (p-value =.17) 95% CI for difference in proportions healed was (-.04,.42) The power to detect a difference as large as the sample results with samples of size 30 and 31 respectively is only 25% Healed Not healed Total Drug A 23 7 30 Drug B 18 13 31 Source: Campbell, J., Machin (1993), Familiari, et al. (1981), Clinical Trial. 6

Example As a clinician, you find the sample results intriguing You want to do a larger study to better quantify the difference in proportions healed Redesign a new trial, using the afore mentioned study results to guestimate population characteristics Use p DRUG A =.77 and p DRUG B =.58 80% power α =.05 Command in Stata sampsi.77.58, alpha (.05) power (.8) 7

Example Command in Stata sampsi.77.58, alpha (.05) power (.8) 8

Example What would happen if you change power to 90%? sampsi.77.58, alpha (.05) power (.9) 9

Example Suppose you wanted two times as many people on trithiozone ( Drug B ) as compared to pirenzephine ( Drug A ) Here, the ratio of sample size for Group 2 to Group 1 is 2.0 Can use ratio option in sampsi command 10

Example Changing the ratio sampsi.77.58, alpha (.05) power (.9) ratio(2) 11

Sample Size for Comparing Two Proportions A randomized trial is being designed to determine if vitamin A supplementation can reduce the risk of breast cancer The study will follow women between the ages of 45 65 for one year Women were randomized between vitamin A and placebo What sample sizes are recommended? 12

Breast Cancer/Vitamin A Example Design a study to have 80% power to detect a 50% relative reduction in risk of breast cancer w/vitamin A (i.e., ) Using a (two-sided) test with significance level α-level =.05 To get estimates of proportions of interest: Using other studies, the breast cancer rate in the controls can be assumed to be 150/100,000 per year 13

Breast Cancer/Vitamin A Example A 50% relative reduction: if then, So, for this desired difference in the relative scale: Notice, that this difference on the absolute scale,, is much smaller in magnitude: 14

Breast Cancer Sample Size Calculation in Stata sampsi command sampsi.00075.0015, alpha(.05) power(.8) 15

Breast Cancer Sample Size Calculation in Stata You would need about 34,000 individuals per group Why so many? The difference between two hypothesized proportions is very small (=.00075) We would expect about 50 cancer cases among the controls and 25 cancer cases among the vitamin A group 16

Breast Cancer/Vitamin A Example Suppose you want 80% power to detect only a 20% (relative) reduction in risk associated with vitamin A 20% relative reduction: if then So, for this desired difference in the relative scale: Notice, that this difference on the absolute scale,, is much smaller in magnitude: 17

Breast Cancer Sample Size Calculation in Stata sampsi command sampsi.0012.0015, alpha(.05) power(.8) 18

Breast Cancer Vitamin A Example Revisited You would need about 242,000 per group! We would expect 360 cancer cases among the placebo group and 290 among vitamin A group 19

An Alternative Approach Design a Longer Study Proposal Five-year follow-up instead of one year Here: p VITA 5.0012 =.006 p PLACEBO 5.0015 =.0075 Need about 48,000 per group Yields about 290 cases among vitamin A and 360 cases among placebo Issue Loss to follow-up 20