Some considerations for the planning of total-community prevention trials-when is sample size adequate?

1980 ◽  
Vol 5 (4) ◽  
pp. 270-278 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard F. Gillum ◽  
Paul T. Williams ◽  
Edward Sondik
Keyword(s):  
Sample Size ◽  
Community Prevention ◽  
Total Community ◽  
Prevention Trials

P1-188: Enrichment strategies for secondary prevention trials: The effect of restrictive inclusion criteria on statistical power and sample size

2008 ◽  
Vol 4 ◽  
pp. T263-T264
Author(s):  
Steven D. Edland ◽  
Linda K. McEvoy ◽  
Dominic Holland ◽  
John C. Roddey ◽  
Christine Fennema-Notestine ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Secondary Prevention ◽  
Sample Size ◽  
Statistical Power ◽  
Inclusion Criteria ◽  
Prevention Trials

scholarly journals Developing a composite outcome measure for frailty prevention trials – rationale, derivation and sample size comparison with other candidate measures

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Miles D. Witham ◽  
James Wason ◽  
Richard M Dodds ◽  
Avan A Sayer
Keyword(s):  
Sample Size ◽  
Transition Probabilities ◽  
Adverse Outcomes ◽  
Transition Rates ◽  
Composite Outcome ◽  
Composite Measure ◽  
Sample Sizes ◽  
Loss To Follow Up ◽  
Prevention Trials

Abstract Introduction Frailty is the loss of ability to withstand a physiological stressor, and is associated with multiple adverse outcomes in older people. Trials to prevent or ameliorate frailty are in their infancy. A range of different outcome measures have been proposed, but current measures require either large sample sizes, long follow-up, or do not directly measure the construct of frailty. Methods We propose a composite outcome for frailty prevention trials, comprising progression to the frail state, death, or being too unwell to continue in a trial. To determine likely event rates, we used data from the English Longitudinal Study for Ageing, collected 4 years apart. We calculated transition rates between non-frail, prefrail, frail or loss to follow up due to death or illness. We used Markov state transition models to interpolate one- and two-year transition rates, and performed sample size calculations for a range of differences in transition rates using simple and composite outcomes. Results The frailty category was calculable for 4650 individuals at baseline (2226 non-frail, 1907 prefrail, 517 frail); at follow up, 1282 were non-frail, 1108 were prefrail, 318 were frail and 1936 had dropped out or were unable to complete all tests for frailty. Transition probabilities for those prefrail at baseline, measured at wave 4 were respectively 0.176, 0.286, 0.096 and 0.442 to non-frail, prefrail, frail and dead/dropped out. Interpolated transition probabilities were 0.159, 0.494, 0.113 and 0.234 at two years, and 0.108, 0.688, 0.087 and 0.117 at one year. Required sample sizes for a two-year outcome were between 1000 and 7200 for transition from prefrailty to frailty alone, 250 to 1600 for transition to the composite measure, and 75 to 350 using the composite measure with an ordinal logistic regression approach. Conclusion Use of a composite outcome for frailty trials offers reduced sample sizes and could ameliorate the effect of high loss to follow up inherent in such trials due to death and illness.

scholarly journals Developing a composite outcome measure for frailty prevention trials – rationale, derivation and sample size comparison with other candidate measures

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Miles D. Witham ◽  
James Wason ◽  
Richard M Dodds ◽  
Avan A Sayer
Keyword(s):  
Sample Size ◽  
Transition Probabilities ◽  
Adverse Outcomes ◽  
Transition Rates ◽  
Composite Outcome ◽  
Composite Measure ◽  
Sample Sizes ◽  
Loss To Follow Up ◽  
Prevention Trials

Abstract Introduction Frailty is the loss of ability to withstand a physiological stressor, and is associated with multiple adverse outcomes in older people. Trials to prevent or ameliorate frailty are in their infancy. A range of different outcome measures have been proposed, but current measures require either large sample sizes, long follow-up, or do not directly measure the construct of frailty. Methods We propose a composite outcome for frailty prevention trials, comprising progression to the frail state, death, or being too unwell to continue in a trial. To determine likely event rates, we used data from the English Longitudinal Study for Ageing, collected 4 years apart. We calculated transition rates between non-frail, prefrail, frail or loss to follow up due to death or illness. We used Markov state transition models to interpolate one- and two-year transition rates, and performed sample size calculations for a range of differences in transition rates using simple and composite outcomes. Results The frailty category was calculable for 4650 individuals at baseline (2226 non-frail, 1907 prefrail, 517 frail); at follow up, 1282 were non-frail, 1108 were prefrail, 318 were frail and 1936 had dropped out or were unable to complete all tests for frailty. Transition probabilities for those prefrail at baseline, measured at wave 4 were respectively 0.176, 0.286, 0.096 and 0.442 to non-frail, prefrail, frail and dead/dropped out. Interpolated transition probabilities were 0.159, 0.494, 0.113 and 0.234 at two years, and 0.108, 0.688, 0.087 and 0.117 at one year. Required sample sizes for a two-year outcome were between 1000 and 7200 for transition from prefrailty to frailty alone, 250 to 1600 for transition to the composite measure, and 75 to 350 using the composite measure with an ordinal logistic regression approach. Conclusion Use of a composite outcome for frailty trials offers reduced sample sizes and could ameliorate the effect of high loss to follow up inherent in such trials due to death and illness.

Simplified sample size calculations for prevention trials

1985 ◽  
Vol 6 (3) ◽  
pp. 231
Author(s):  
Steven Piantadosi ◽  
Mitchell Gail ◽  
Larry Rubinstein
Keyword(s):  
Sample Size ◽  
Sample Size Calculations ◽  
Prevention Trials

IC-P2-092: The relative performance of different structural MRI measures as outcomes in secondary prevention trials: Statistical considerations of power and sample size

2008 ◽  
Vol 4 ◽  
pp. T44-T44
Author(s):  
Steven D. Edland ◽  
Dominic Holland ◽  
Christine Fennema-Notestine ◽  
Donald J. Hagler ◽  
Linda K. McEvoy ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Secondary Prevention ◽  
Sample Size ◽  
Structural Mri ◽  
Relative Performance ◽  
Prevention Trials
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document