IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this article

A Bayesian approach to sample size determination for studies designed to evaluate continuous medical tests

Listed author(s):
  • Cheng, Dunlei
  • Branscum, Adam J.
  • Stamey, James D.

We develop a Bayesian approach to sample size and power calculations for cross-sectional studies that are designed to evaluate and compare continuous medical tests. For studies that involve one test or two conditionally independent or dependent tests, we present methods that are applicable when the true disease status of sampled individuals will be available and when it will not. Within a hypothesis testing framework, we consider the goal of demonstrating that a medical test has area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve that exceeds a minimum acceptable level or another relevant threshold, and the goals of establishing the superiority or equivalence of one test relative to another. A Bayesian average power criterion is used to determine a sample size that will yield high posterior probability, on average, of a future study correctly deciding in favor of these goals. The impacts on Bayesian average power of prior distributions, the proportion of diseased subjects in the study, and correlation among tests are investigated through simulation. The computational algorithm we develop involves simulating multiple data sets that are fit with Bayesian models using Gibbs sampling, and is executed by using WinBUGS in tandem with R.

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL:
Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only.

As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

Article provided by Elsevier in its journal Computational Statistics & Data Analysis.

Volume (Year): 54 (2010)
Issue (Month): 2 (February)
Pages: 298-307

in new window

Handle: RePEc:eee:csdana:v:54:y:2010:i:2:p:298-307
Contact details of provider: Web page:

No references listed on IDEAS
You can help add them by filling out this form.

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:csdana:v:54:y:2010:i:2:p:298-307. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Dana Niculescu)

If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.