Adjusting for expected dropout-rate [Power / Sample Size]
Dear all,
regularly I come across interesting methods for adjusting the sample size. Strange enough many people apply this formula:
\(n_{\textrm{adj}}=100\times n_{\textrm{des}}\times (1+dor) \tag{1}\)
where nadj is the adjusted sample size (dosed subjects), ndes the desired sample size (as estimated for the desired power), and dor the expected dropout-rate in percent. nadj is rounded up to give balanced sequences (crossover) or equal group sizes (parallel). This formula is flawed – especially for high sample sizes and/or high dropout-rates.
Example: 2×2 crossover and expected dropout-rate 15%
\(n_{\textrm{adj}}=100\times n_{\textrm{des}}/ (100-dor) \tag{2}\)
which gives:
(1) is flawed because the actual dropout-rate is based on the dosed subjects (i.e., calculated downwards from nadj – not upwards from ndes).
On the other hand for low sample sizes and/or dropout-rates (2) might be overly conservative. Of course you could “pick out the best” from both (i.e., the nadj which will lead to the lowest n ≥ ndes).
A nice statement* [about an anticipated dropout rate of 15%]:
An all to common error though in daily life many people fail to calculate the net value from the total amount and VAT as well. If the total is 110.– and the VAT is 10%, the net value is 100.– (i.e., 110/1.10) and not 99.– (110×0.90)…
regularly I come across interesting methods for adjusting the sample size. Strange enough many people apply this formula:
\(n_{\textrm{adj}}=100\times n_{\textrm{des}}\times (1+dor) \tag{1}\)
where nadj is the adjusted sample size (dosed subjects), ndes the desired sample size (as estimated for the desired power), and dor the expected dropout-rate in percent. nadj is rounded up to give balanced sequences (crossover) or equal group sizes (parallel). This formula is flawed – especially for high sample sizes and/or high dropout-rates.
Example: 2×2 crossover and expected dropout-rate 15%
ndes nadj n
12 14 12
24 28 24
30 36 31
36 42 36
48 56 48
64 74 63
72 84 71
96 112 95
120 138 117
144 166 141
\(n_{\textrm{adj}}=100\times n_{\textrm{des}}/ (100-dor) \tag{2}\)
which gives:
ndes nadj n
12 16 14
24 30 26
30 36 31
36 44 37
48 58 49
64 76 65
72 86 73
96 114 97
120 142 121
144 170 145
(1) is flawed because the actual dropout-rate is based on the dosed subjects (i.e., calculated downwards from nadj – not upwards from ndes).
On the other hand for low sample sizes and/or dropout-rates (2) might be overly conservative. Of course you could “pick out the best” from both (i.e., the nadj which will lead to the lowest n ≥ ndes).
A nice statement* [about an anticipated dropout rate of 15%]:
Note a very common mistake when calculating the total sample size is to multiply the evaluable sample size by 1.15 and not divide by 0.85.
An all to common error though in daily life many people fail to calculate the net value from the total amount and VAT as well. If the total is 110.– and the VAT is 10%, the net value is 100.– (i.e., 110/1.10) and not 99.– (110×0.90)…
- Julious SA. Sample Sizes for Clinical Trials. Boca Raton: CRC Press; 2010. p.53.
—
Dif-tor heh smusma 🖖🏼 Довге життя Україна!
Helmut Schütz
The quality of responses received is directly proportional to the quality of the question asked. 🚮
Science Quotes
Dif-tor heh smusma 🖖🏼 Довге життя Україна!
Helmut Schütz
The quality of responses received is directly proportional to the quality of the question asked. 🚮
Science Quotes
Complete thread:
- Adjusting for expected dropout-rateHelmut 2015-06-17 12:33 [Power / Sample Size]
- Percentage calculation d_labes 2015-06-18 09:02
- Adjusting for expected dropout-rate - Nitpicking zizou 2015-08-18 23:34
- Good point! Helmut 2015-08-19 02:20
- Good point! intuitivepharma 2015-08-19 07:47
- Copy paste error d_labes 2015-08-19 10:12
- Copy paste error intuitivepharma 2015-08-19 11:18
- PowerTOST <1.2.7? Helmut 2015-08-19 11:44
- PowerTOST <1.2.7? intuitivepharma 2015-08-26 14:41
- PowerTOST <1.2.7? Helmut 2015-08-19 11:44
- Copy paste error intuitivepharma 2015-08-19 11:18
- Copy paste error d_labes 2015-08-19 10:12
- Good point! intuitivepharma 2015-08-19 07:47
- Good point! Helmut 2015-08-19 02:20