Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37596684›Full record

ArticleDiagnostic and prognostic research2023

Sample size determination for point-of-care COVID-19 diagnostic tests: a Bayesian approach.

S Faye Williamson, Cameron J Williams, B Clare Lendrem, Kevin J Wilson

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Diagnostic and prognostic research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 34% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

S Faye WilliamsonBiostatistics Research Group, Population Health Sciences Institute, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK. faye.williamson@newcastle.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1800-6625
Cameron J WilliamsNIHR Newcastle In Vitro Diagnostic Cooperative, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
B Clare LendremNIHR Newcastle In Vitro Diagnostic Cooperative, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
Kevin J WilsonSchool of Mathematics, Statistics and Physics, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
Newcastle University · GBNIHR Leeds In Vitro Diagnostics Co-operative · GB

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/S014357/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn a pandemic setting, it is critical to evaluate and deploy accurate diagnostic tests rapidly. This relies heavily on the sample size chosen to assess the test accuracy (e.g. sensitivity and specificity) during the diagnostic accuracy study. Too small a sample size will lead to imprecise estimates of the accuracy measures, whereas too large a sample size may delay the development process unnecessarily. This study considers use of a Bayesian method to guide sample size determination for diagnostic accuracy studies, with application to COVID-19 rapid viral detection tests. Specifically, we investigate whether utilising existing information (e.g. from preceding laboratory studies) within a Bayesian framework can reduce the required sample size, whilst maintaining test accuracy to the desired precision.

methodsThe method presented is based on the Bayesian concept of assurance which, in this context, represents the unconditional probability that a diagnostic accuracy study yields sensitivity and/or specificity intervals with the desired precision. We conduct a simulation study to evaluate the performance of this approach in a variety of COVID-19 settings, and compare it to commonly used power-based methods. An accompanying interactive web application is available, which can be used by researchers to perform the sample size calculations.

resultsResults show that the Bayesian assurance method can reduce the required sample size for COVID-19 diagnostic accuracy studies, compared to standard methods, by making better use of laboratory data, without loss of performance. Increasing the size of the laboratory study can further reduce the required sample size in the diagnostic accuracy study.

conclusionsThe method considered in this paper is an important advancement for increasing the efficiency of the evidence development pathway. It has highlighted that the trade-off between lab study sample size and diagnostic accuracy study sample size should be carefully considered, since establishing an adequate lab sample size can bring longer-term gains. Although emphasis is on its use in the COVID-19 pandemic setting, where we envisage it will have the most impact, it can be usefully applied in other clinical areas.

Indexed as

Bayesian assuranceCOVID-19Diagnostic accuracy studyPrecisionSample sizeSensitivitySpecificity

Identifiers

PMID37596684
PMCPMC10436636
OpenAlexW4385985973

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.