A descriptive study of samples sizes used in agreement studies published in the PubMed repository.
Agreement
Design
Method comparison
Sample size
Test–retest
Journal
BMC medical research methodology
ISSN: 1471-2288
Titre abrégé: BMC Med Res Methodol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100968545
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
19 09 2022
19 09 2022
Historique:
received:
23
02
2022
accepted:
23
08
2022
entrez:
19
9
2022
pubmed:
20
9
2022
medline:
23
9
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
A sample size justification is required for all studies and should give the minimum number of subjects to be recruited for the study to achieve its primary objective. The aim of this review is to describe sample sizes from agreement studies with continuous or categorical endpoints and different methods of assessing agreement, and to determine whether sample size justification was provided. Data were gathered from the PubMed repository with a time interval of 28 We observed a wide range of sample sizes. Forty-six studies (56%) used a continuous outcome measure, 28 (34%) used categorical and eight (10%) used both. Median sample sizes were 50 (IQR 25 to 100) for continuous endpoints and 119 (IQR 50 to 271) for categorical endpoints. Bland-Altman limits of agreement (median sample size 65; IQR 35 to 124) were the most common method of statistical analysis for continuous variables and Kappa coefficients for categorical variables (median sample size 71; IQR 50 to 233). Of the 82 studies assessed, only 27 (33%) gave justification for their sample size. Despite the importance of a sample size justification, we found that two-thirds of agreement studies did not provide one. We recommend that all agreement studies provide rationale for their sample size even if they do not include a formal sample size calculation.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36123642
doi: 10.1186/s12874-022-01723-5
pii: 10.1186/s12874-022-01723-5
pmc: PMC9487062
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
242Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s).
Références
Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 2011 Jul;31(4):330-8
pubmed: 21615445
PLoS One. 2012;7(5):e37908
pubmed: 22662248
Br Med J. 1980 Nov 15;281(6251):1336-8
pubmed: 7437789
JAMA. 1996 Aug 28;276(8):637-9
pubmed: 8773637
J Clin Epidemiol. 2011 Jan;64(1):96-106
pubmed: 21130355
Stat Med. 2002 May 15;21(9):1331-5
pubmed: 12111881
Int J Biostat. 2016 Nov 1;12(2):
pubmed: 27838682
Lancet. 1986 Feb 8;1(8476):307-10
pubmed: 2868172
Trials. 2018 Oct 10;19(1):544
pubmed: 30305146
BMJ. 2009 May 12;338:b1732
pubmed: 19435763
Diagn Interv Imaging. 2017 Mar;98(3):227-233
pubmed: 27473190
PLoS One. 2021 Jun 4;16(6):e0252640
pubmed: 34086796
Int J Biostat. 2010;6(1):Article 31
pubmed: 21969984
Stat Med. 2008 Jun 15;27(13):2273-89
pubmed: 17979182
Phys Ther. 2005 Mar;85(3):257-68
pubmed: 15733050
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2013 Aug 20;13:104
pubmed: 23961782
Pharm Stat. 2010 Apr-Jun;9(2):125-32
pubmed: 19507134
Comput Biol Med. 2018 Sep 1;100:247-252
pubmed: 30056297