IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0132578.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Sample Size Calculation: Inaccurate A Priori Assumptions for Nuisance Parameters Can Greatly Affect the Power of a Randomized Controlled Trial

Author

Listed:
  • Elsa Tavernier
  • Bruno Giraudeau

Abstract

We aimed to examine the extent to which inaccurate assumptions for nuisance parameters used to calculate sample size can affect the power of a randomized controlled trial (RCT). In a simulation study, we separately considered an RCT with continuous, dichotomous or time-to-event outcomes, with associated nuisance parameters of standard deviation, success rate in the control group and survival rate in the control group at some time point, respectively. For each type of outcome, we calculated a required sample size N for a hypothesized treatment effect, an assumed nuisance parameter and a nominal power of 80%. We then assumed a nuisance parameter associated with a relative error at the design stage. For each type of outcome, we randomly drew 10,000 relative errors of the associated nuisance parameter (from empirical distributions derived from a previously published review). Then, retro-fitting the sample size formula, we derived, for the pre-calculated sample size N, the real power of the RCT, taking into account the relative error for the nuisance parameter. In total, 23%, 0% and 18% of RCTs with continuous, binary and time-to-event outcomes, respectively, were underpowered (i.e., the real power was 90%). Even with proper calculation of sample size, a substantial number of trials are underpowered or overpowered because of imprecise knowledge of nuisance parameters. Such findings raise questions about how sample size for RCTs should be determined.

Suggested Citation

  • Elsa Tavernier & Bruno Giraudeau, 2015. "Sample Size Calculation: Inaccurate A Priori Assumptions for Nuisance Parameters Can Greatly Affect the Power of a Randomized Controlled Trial," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(7), pages 1-8, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0132578
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0132578
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0132578
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0132578&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0132578?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Elsa Tavernier & Ludovic Trinquart & Bruno Giraudeau, 2016. "Finding Alternatives to the Dogma of Power Based Sample Size Calculation: Is a Fixed Sample Size Prospective Meta-Experiment a Potential Alternative?," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(6), pages 1-11, June.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0132578. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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 RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.