» Articles » PMID: 10351998

Necessary Sample Size for Method Comparison Studies Based on Regression Analysis

Overview
Journal Clin Chem
Specialty Biochemistry
Date 1999 Jun 3
PMID 10351998
Citations 29
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: In method comparison studies, it is of importance to assure that the presence of a difference of medical importance is detected. For a given difference, the necessary number of samples depends on the range of values and the analytical standard deviations of the methods involved. For typical examples, the present study evaluates the statistical power of least-squares and Deming regression analyses applied to the method comparison data.

Methods: Theoretical calculations and simulations were used to consider the statistical power for detection of slope deviations from unity and intercept deviations from zero. For situations with proportional analytical standard deviations, weighted forms of regression analysis were evaluated.

Results: In general, sample sizes of 40-100 samples conventionally used in method comparison studies often must be reconsidered. A main factor is the range of values, which should be as wide as possible for the given analyte. For a range ratio (maximum value divided by minimum value) of 2, 544 samples are required to detect one standardized slope deviation; the number of required samples decreases to 64 at a range ratio of 10 (proportional analytical error). For electrolytes having very narrow ranges of values, very large sample sizes usually are necessary. In case of proportional analytical error, application of a weighted approach is important to assure an efficient analysis; e.g., for a range ratio of 10, the weighted approach reduces the requirement of samples by >50%.

Conclusions: Estimation of the necessary sample size for a method comparison study assures a valid result; either no difference is found or the existence of a relevant difference is confirmed.

Citing Articles

Comparing Point-of-Care Technology to ELISA Testing for Infliximab and Adalimumab Levels in Adult Inflammatory Bowel Disease Patients: A Prospective Pilot Study.

Bonazzi E, Maniero D, Lorenzon G, Bertin L, Bray K, Bahur B Diagnostics (Basel). 2024; 14(19).

PMID: 39410544 PMC: 11482612. DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics14192140.


Accelerating haploid induction rate and haploid validation through marker-assisted selection for and in maize.

Khammona K, Dermail A, Suriharn K, Lubberstedt T, Wanchana S, Thunnom B Front Plant Sci. 2024; 15:1337463.

PMID: 38504887 PMC: 10948437. DOI: 10.3389/fpls.2024.1337463.


Is the Bland-Altman plot method useful without inferences for accuracy, precision, and agreement?.

Silveira P, Edson Vieira J, Siqueira J Rev Saude Publica. 2024; 58:01.

PMID: 38381891 PMC: 10878685. DOI: 10.11606/s1518-8787.2024058005430.


Salivary Therapeutic Drug Monitoring of Antimicrobial Therapy: Feasible or Futile?.

Forsman L, Kim H, Nguyen T, Alffenaar J Clin Pharmacokinet. 2024; 63(3):269-278.

PMID: 38300489 PMC: 10954910. DOI: 10.1007/s40262-024-01346-7.


Early assessment of the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic effects following acetylsalicylic acid loading: toward a definition for acute therapeutic response.

Gurbel P, Bliden K, Kundan P, Kraft D, Parekh R, Singh S J Thromb Thrombolysis. 2023; 57(1):21-28.

PMID: 38066385 PMC: 10830588. DOI: 10.1007/s11239-023-02914-7.