Skip to main content
construction release_alert
Scholars@Duke will be undergoing maintenance April 11-15. Some features may be unavailable during this time.
cancel
Journal cover image

Sample size calculations for evaluating a diagnostic test when the gold standard is missing at random.

Publication ,  Journal Article
Kosinski, AS; Chen, Y; Lyles, RH
Published in: Stat Med
July 10, 2010

Performance of a diagnostic test is ideally evaluated by a comparison of the test results to a gold standard for all the patients in a study. In practice, however, it is common for a subset of study patients to have the gold standard not verified (missing) due to ethical or expense considerations. Sensitivity and specificity are often used as the relevant test performance measures and a joint confidence region (CR) for sensitivity and specificity can summarize the precision of estimates. In this paper, we present an approach to sample size computations when designing a study in which the gold standard is considered to be missing at random (MAR). We calculate the needed increase in sample size to ensure that the joint CR under MAR falls inside the boundaries of the joint CR derived for data with no missingness present.

Duke Scholars

Published In

Stat Med

DOI

EISSN

1097-0258

Publication Date

July 10, 2010

Volume

29

Issue

15

Start / End Page

1572 / 1579

Location

England

Related Subject Headings

  • Statistics & Probability
  • Sensitivity and Specificity
  • Sample Size
  • Prostatic Neoplasms
  • Prostate-Specific Antigen
  • Male
  • Humans
  • Diagnostic Tests, Routine
  • Data Interpretation, Statistical
  • Confidence Intervals
 

Citation

APA
Chicago
ICMJE
MLA
NLM
Kosinski, A. S., Chen, Y., & Lyles, R. H. (2010). Sample size calculations for evaluating a diagnostic test when the gold standard is missing at random. Stat Med, 29(15), 1572–1579. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.3899
Kosinski, Andrzej S., Ying Chen, and Robert H. Lyles. “Sample size calculations for evaluating a diagnostic test when the gold standard is missing at random.Stat Med 29, no. 15 (July 10, 2010): 1572–79. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.3899.
Kosinski AS, Chen Y, Lyles RH. Sample size calculations for evaluating a diagnostic test when the gold standard is missing at random. Stat Med. 2010 Jul 10;29(15):1572–9.
Kosinski, Andrzej S., et al. “Sample size calculations for evaluating a diagnostic test when the gold standard is missing at random.Stat Med, vol. 29, no. 15, July 2010, pp. 1572–79. Pubmed, doi:10.1002/sim.3899.
Kosinski AS, Chen Y, Lyles RH. Sample size calculations for evaluating a diagnostic test when the gold standard is missing at random. Stat Med. 2010 Jul 10;29(15):1572–1579.
Journal cover image

Published In

Stat Med

DOI

EISSN

1097-0258

Publication Date

July 10, 2010

Volume

29

Issue

15

Start / End Page

1572 / 1579

Location

England

Related Subject Headings

  • Statistics & Probability
  • Sensitivity and Specificity
  • Sample Size
  • Prostatic Neoplasms
  • Prostate-Specific Antigen
  • Male
  • Humans
  • Diagnostic Tests, Routine
  • Data Interpretation, Statistical
  • Confidence Intervals