A simple ratio-based approach for power and sample size determination for 2-group comparison using Rasch models

BMC Medical Research Methodology

Jean-Benoit Hardouin²  Bruno Falissard¹  Francis Guillemin³  Myriam Blanchin²  Véronique Sébille² 

[1] AP-HP, Hôpital Paul Brousse, Département de santé publique, Villejuif, France;EA 4275, Biostatistics, Pharmacoepidemiology and Subjective Measures in Health Sciences, University of Nantes, Nantes, France;EA 4360 Apemac, Lorraine University, Paris Descartes University, Nancy, France

关键词: Power;    Sample size;    Rasch model;    Item response theory;    Patient-reported outcomes;   

Others  :  865374
DOI  :  10.1186/1471-2288-14-87

 received in 2013-12-18, accepted in 2014-06-27,  发布年份 2014

【 摘 要 】

Background

Despite the widespread use of patient-reported Outcomes (PRO) in clinical studies, their design remains a challenge. Justification of study size is hardly provided, especially when a Rasch model is planned for analysing the data in a 2-group comparison study. The classical sample size formula (CLASSIC) for comparing normally distributed endpoints between two groups has shown to be inadequate in this setting (underestimated study sizes). A correction factor (RATIO) has been proposed to reach an adequate sample size from the CLASSIC when a Rasch model is intended to be used for analysis. The objective was to explore the impact of the parameters used for study design on the RATIO and to identify the most relevant to provide a simple method for sample size determination for Rasch modelling.

Methods

A large combination of parameters used for study design was simulated using a Monte Carlo method: variance of the latent trait, group effect, sample size per group, number of items and items difficulty parameters. A linear regression model explaining the RATIO and including all the former parameters as covariates was fitted.

Results

The most relevant parameters explaining the ratio’s variations were the number of items and the variance of the latent trait (R² = 99.4%).

Conclusions

Using the classical sample size formula adjusted with the proposed RATIO can provide a straightforward and reliable formula for sample size computation for 2-group comparison of PRO data using Rasch models.

【 授权许可】

   
2014 Sébille et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Smith EM, Pang H, Cirrincione C, Fleishman S, Paskett ED, Ahles T, Bressler LR, Fadul CE, Knox C, Le-Lindqwister N, Gilman PB, Shapiro CL, Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology: Effect of duloxetine on pain, function, and quality of life among patients with chemotherapy-induced painful peripheral neuropathy: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA 2013, 309:1359-1367.
• [2]Lamy A, Devereaux PJ, Prabhakaran D, Taggart DP, Hu S, Paolasso E, Straka Z, Piegas LS, Akar AR, Jain AR, Noiseux N, Padmanabhan C, Bahamondes JC, Novick RJ, Vaijyanath P, Reddy SK, Tao L, Olavegogeascoechea PA, Airan B, Sulling TA, Whitlock RP, Ou Y, Pogue J, Chrolavicius S, Yusuf S, CORONARY Investigators: Effects of off-pump and on-pump coronary-artery bypass grafting at 1 year. N Engl J Med 2013, 368:1179-1188.
• [3]Cunningham MA, Swanson V, Holdsworth RJ, O'Carroll RE: Late effects of a brief psychological intervention in patients with intermittent claudication in a randomized clinical trial. Br J Surg 2013, 100:756-760.
• [4]Cartwright M, Hirani SP, Rixon L, Beynon M, Doll H, Bower P, Bardsley M, Steventon A, Knapp M, Henderson C, Rogers A, Sanders C, Fitzpatrick R, Barlow J, Newman SP, Whole Systems Demonstrator Evaluation Team: Effect of telehealth on quality of life and psychological outcomes over 12 months (Whole Systems Demonstrator telehealth questionnaire study): nested study of patient reported outcomes in a pragmatic, cluster randomised controlled trial. BMJ 2013, 346:f653.
• [5]Weis J, Arraras JI, Conroy T, Efficace F, Fleissner C, Görög A, Hammerlid E, Holzner B, Jones L, Lanceley A, Singer S, Wirtz M, Flechtner H, Bottomley A: Development of an EORTC quality of life phase III module measuring cancer-related fatigue (EORTC QLQ-FA13). Psychooncology 2013, 22:1002-1007.
• [6]Cella D, Riley W, Stone A, Rothrock N, Reeve B, Yount S, Amtmann D, Bode R, Buysse D, Choi S, Cook K, Devellis R, DeWalt D, Fries JF, Gershon R, Hahn EA, Lai JS, Pilkonis P, Revicki D, Rose M, Weinfurt K, Hays R: The patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS) developed and tested its first wave of adult self-reported health outcome item banks: 2005–2008. J Clin Epidemiol 2010, 63:1179-1194.
• [7]Langer MM, Hill CD, Thissen D, Burwinkle TM, Varni JW, DeWalt DA: Item response theory detected differential item functioning between healthy and ill children in quality-of-life measures. J Clin Epidemiol 2008, 61:268-276.
• [8]Fisher GH, Molenaar IW: Rasch Models, Foundations, Recent Developments, and Applications. New-York: Springer-Verlag; 1995.
• [9]Sébille V, Hardouin J-B, Mesbah M: Sequential analysis of latent variables using mixed-effect latent variable models: impact of non-informative and informative missing data. Stat Med 2007, 26:4889-4904.
• [10]Hardouin JB, Conroy R, Sébille V: Imputation by the mean score should be avoided when validating a patient reported outcomes questionnaire by Rasch model in presence of informative missing data. BMC Med Res Meth 2011, 11:105.
• [11]De Bock E, Hardouin JB, Blanchin M, Le Neel T, Kubis G, Bonnaud-Antignac A, Dantan E, Sébille V: Rasch-family models are more valuable than score-based approaches for analyzing longitudinal PRO with missing data. Stat Meth Med Resin press
• [12]Andrich D: Rating scales and rasch measurement. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res 2011, 11:571-585.
• [13]Ravens-Sieberer U, Herdman M, Devine J, Otto C, Bullinger M, Rose M, Klasen F: The European KIDSCREEN approach to measure quality of life and well-being in children: development, current application, and future advances. Qual Life Resin press
• [14]Waller J, Ostini R, Marlow LAV, McCaffery K, Zimet G: Validation of a measure of knowledge about human papillomavirus (HPV) using item response theory and classical test theory. Prev Med 2013, 56:35-40.
• [15]Sapin C, Simeoni M-C, El Khammar M, Antoniotti S, Auquier P: Reliability and validity of the VSP-A, a health-related quality of life instrument for ill and healthy adolescents. J Adolesc Health 2005, 36:327-336.
• [16]Begg C, Cho M, Eastwood S, Horton R, Moher D, Olkin I, Pitkin R, Rennie D, Schulz KF, Simel D, Stroup DF: Improving the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials: the CONSORT statement. JAMA 1996, 276:637-639.
• [17]Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D, CONSORT Group: CONSORT: Statement: Updated Guidelines for Reporting Parallel Group Randomized Trials. Ann Intern Med 2010, 2010(152):726-732.
• [18]von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, Pocock SJ, Gotzsche PC, Vandenbroucke JP: The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. Ann Intern Med 2007, 147:573-577.
• [19]Des Jarlais DC, Lyles C, Crepaz N: Improving the reporting quality of nonrandomized evaluations of behavioral and public health interventions: the TREND statement. Am J Public Health 2004, 94:361-366.
• [20]Calvert M, Blazeby J, Altman DG, Revicki DA, Moher D, Brundage MD, CONSORT PRO Group: Reporting of patient-reported outcomes in randomized trials: the CONSORT PRO extension. JAMA 2013, 309:814-822.
• [21]US Department of Health and Human Services: Guidance for Industry (Patient-reported outcome measures: use in medical product development to support labeling claims). http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/UCM193282.pdf webcite
• [22]Sébille V, Hardouin J-B, Le Neel T, Kubis G, Boyer F, Guillemin F, Falissard B: Methodological issues regarding power of classical test theory and IRT-based approaches for the comparison of Patient-Reported Outcome measures – A simulation study. BMC Med Res Meth 2010, 10:24.
• [23]Hardouin J-B, Amri S, Feddag M-L, Sébille V: Towards power and sample size calculations for the comparison of two groups of patients with item response theory models. Stat Med 2012, 31:1277-1290.
• [24]Julious SA: Sample sizes for clinical trials with normal data. Stat Med 2004, 30:1921-1986.
• [25]Glas CAW: The derivation of some tests for the Rasch model from the multinomial distribution. Psychometrika 1988, 53:525-546.
• [26]Blanchin M, Hardouin J-B, Le Neel T, Kubis G, Blanchard C, Miraillé E, Sébille V: Comparison of CTT and IRT based-approach for the analysis of longitudinal Patient Reported Outcome. Stat Med 2011, 30:825-838.
• [27]Hardouin J-B, Audureau E, Leplège A, Coste J: Spatio-temporal Rasch analysis of Quality of life outcomes in the french general population. Measurement invariance and group comparisons. BMC Med Res Meth 2012, 212:182.
• [28]Feddag ML, Blanchin M, Hardouin JB, Sébille V: Power analysis on the time effect for the longitudinal Rasch model. J Appl Meas 2014. in press