Bayesian sample size determination for cost-effectiveness studies with censored data.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Beavers DP
PROVIDER: S-EPMC5755783 | biostudies-literature | 2018
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Bayesian sample size determination for cost-effectiveness studies with censored data.
Beavers Daniel P DP Stamey James D JD
PloS one 20180105 1
Cost-effectiveness models are commonly utilized to determine the combined clinical and economic impact of one treatment compared to another. However, most methods for sample size determination of cost-effectiveness studies assume fully observed costs and effectiveness outcomes, which presents challenges for survival-based studies in which censoring exists. We propose a Bayesian method for the design and analysis of cost-effectiveness data in which costs and effectiveness may be censored, and the ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:The development of a new diagnostic test ideally follows a sequence of stages which, among other aims, evaluate technical performance. This includes an analytical validity study, a diagnostic accuracy study, and an interventional clinical utility study. In this article, we propose a novel Bayesian approach to sample size determination for the diagnostic accuracy study, which takes advantage of information available from the analytical validity stage. We utilize assurance to calculate the required sample size based on the target width of a posterior probability interval and can choose to use or disregard the data from the analytical validity study when subsequently inferring measures of test accuracy. Sensitivity analyses are performed to assess the robustness of the proposed sample size to the choice of prior, and prior-data conflict is evaluated by comparing the data to the prior predictive distributions. We illustrate the proposed approach using a motivating real-life application involving a diagnostic test for ventilator associated pneumonia. Finally, we compare the properties of the approach against commonly used alternatives. The results show that, when suitable prior information is available, the assurance-based approach can reduce the required sample size when compared to alternative approaches.
| S-EPMC9325402 | biostudies-literature
Project description:This paper develops Bayesian sample size formulae for experiments comparing two groups, where relevant preexperimental information from multiple sources can be incorporated in a robust prior to support both the design and analysis. We use commensurate predictive priors for borrowing of information and further place Gamma mixture priors on the precisions to account for preliminary belief about the pairwise (in)commensurability between parameters that underpin the historical and new experiments. Averaged over the probability space of the new experimental data, appropriate sample sizes are found according to criteria that control certain aspects of the posterior distribution, such as the coverage probability or length of a defined density region. Our Bayesian methodology can be applied to circumstances that compare two normal means, proportions, or event times. When nuisance parameters (such as variance) in the new experiment are unknown, a prior distribution can further be specified based on preexperimental data. Exact solutions are available based on most of the criteria considered for Bayesian sample size determination, while a search procedure is described in cases for which there are no closed-form expressions. We illustrate the application of our sample size formulae in the design of clinical trials, where pretrial information is available to be leveraged. Hypothetical data examples, motivated by a rare-disease trial with an elicited expert prior opinion, and a comprehensive performance evaluation of the proposed methodology are presented.
| S-EPMC10952893 | biostudies-literature
Project description:This paper develops Bayesian sample size formulae for experiments comparing two groups, where relevant preexperimental information from multiple sources can be incorporated in a robust prior to support both the design and analysis. We use commensurate predictive priors for borrowing of information and further place Gamma mixture priors on the precisions to account for preliminary belief about the pairwise (in)commensurability between parameters that underpin the historical and new experiments. Averaged over the probability space of the new experimental data, appropriate sample sizes are found according to criteria that control certain aspects of the posterior distribution, such as the coverage probability or length of a defined density region. Our Bayesian methodology can be applied to circumstances that compare two normal means, proportions, or event times. When nuisance parameters (such as variance) in the new experiment are unknown, a prior distribution can further be specified based on preexperimental data. Exact solutions are available based on most of the criteria considered for Bayesian sample size determination, while a search procedure is described in cases for which there are no closed-form expressions. We illustrate the application of our sample size formulae in the design of clinical trials, where pretrial information is available to be leveraged. Hypothetical data examples, motivated by a rare-disease trial with an elicited expert prior opinion, and a comprehensive performance evaluation of the proposed methodology are presented.
| S-EPMC7614678 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Cost-effectiveness analysis is an essential part of the evaluation of new medical interventions. While in many studies both costs and effectiveness (eg, survival time) are censored, standard survival analysis techniques are often invalid due to the induced dependent censoring problem. We propose methods for censored cost-effectiveness data using the net-benefit regression framework, which allow covariate-adjustment and subgroup identification when comparing two intervention groups. The methods provide a straightforward way to construct cost-effectiveness acceptability curves with censored data. We also propose a more efficient doubly robust estimator of average causal incremental net benefit, which increases the likelihood that the results will represent a valid inference in observational studies. Lastly, we conduct extensive numerical studies to examine the finite-sample performance of the proposed methods, and illustrate the proposed methods with a real data example using both survival time and quality-adjusted survival time as the measures of effectiveness.
| S-EPMC9427707 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Researchers can express their expectations with respect to the group means in an ANOVA model through equality and order constrained hypotheses. This paper introduces the R package SSDbain, which can be used to calculate the sample size required to evaluate (informative) hypotheses using the Approximate Adjusted Fractional Bayes Factor (AAFBF) for one-way ANOVA models as implemented in the R package bain. The sample size is determined such that the probability that the Bayes factor is larger than a threshold value is at least η when either of the hypotheses under consideration is true. The Bayesian ANOVA, Bayesian Welch's ANOVA, and Bayesian robust ANOVA are available. Using the R package SSDbain and/or the tables provided in this paper, researchers in the social and behavioral sciences can easily plan the sample size if they intend to use a Bayesian ANOVA.
| S-EPMC9724823 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundResearch for developing search strategies to retrieve high-quality clinical journal articles from MEDLINE is expensive and time-consuming. The objective of this study was to determine the minimal number of high-quality articles in a journal subset that would need to be hand-searched to update or create new MEDLINE search strategies for treatment, diagnosis, and prognosis studies.MethodsThe desired width of the 95% confidence intervals (W) for the lowest sensitivity among existing search strategies was used to calculate the number of high-quality articles needed to reliably update search strategies. New search strategies were derived in journal subsets formed by 2 approaches: random sampling of journals and top journals (having the most high-quality articles). The new strategies were tested in both the original large journal database and in a low-yielding journal (having few high-quality articles) subset.ResultsFor treatment studies, if W was 10% or less for the lowest sensitivity among our existing search strategies, a subset of 15 randomly selected journals or 2 top journals were adequate for updating search strategies, based on each approach having at least 99 high-quality articles. The new strategies derived in 15 randomly selected journals or 2 top journals performed well in the original large journal database. Nevertheless, the new search strategies developed using the random sampling approach performed better than those developed using the top journal approach in a low-yielding journal subset. For studies of diagnosis and prognosis, no journal subset had enough high-quality articles to achieve the expected W (10%).ConclusionThe approach of randomly sampling a small subset of journals that includes sufficient high-quality articles is an efficient way to update or create search strategies for high-quality articles on therapy in MEDLINE. The concentrations of diagnosis and prognosis articles are too low for this approach.
| S-EPMC2569926 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Basket trials are increasingly used for the simultaneous evaluation of a new treatment in various patient subgroups under one overarching protocol. We propose a Bayesian approach to sample size determination in basket trials that permit borrowing of information between commensurate subsets. Specifically, we consider a randomized basket trial design where patients are randomly assigned to the new treatment or control within each trial subset ("subtrial" for short). Closed-form sample size formulae are derived to ensure that each subtrial has a specified chance of correctly deciding whether the new treatment is superior to or not better than the control by some clinically relevant difference. Given prespecified levels of pairwise (in)commensurability, the subtrial sample sizes are solved simultaneously. The proposed Bayesian approach resembles the frequentist formulation of the problem in yielding comparable sample sizes for circumstances of no borrowing. When borrowing is enabled between commensurate subtrials, a considerably smaller trial sample size is required compared to the widely implemented approach of no borrowing. We illustrate the use of our sample size formulae with two examples based on real basket trials. A comprehensive simulation study further shows that the proposed methodology can maintain the true positive and false positive rates at desired levels.
| S-EPMC11616727 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundValue of information is now recognized as a reference method in the decision process underpinning cost-effectiveness evaluation. The expected value of perfect information (EVPI) is the expected value from completely reducing the uncertainty surrounding the cost-effectiveness of an innovative intervention. Among sample size calculation methods used in cost-effectiveness studies, only one is coherent with this decision framework. It uses a Bayesian approach and requires data of a pre-existing cost-effectiveness study to derive a valid prior EVPI. When evaluating the cost-effectiveness of innovations, no observed prior EVPI is usually available to calculate the sample size. We here propose a sample size calculation method for cost-effectiveness studies, that follows the value of information theory, and, being frequentist, can be based on assumptions if no observed prior EVPI is available.MethodsThe general principle of our method is to define the sampling distribution of the incremental net monetary benefit (ΔB), or the distribution of ΔB that would be observed in a planned cost-effectiveness study of size n. Based on this sampling distribution, the EVPI that would remain at the end of the trial (EVPIn) is estimated. The optimal sample size of the planned cost-effectiveness study is the n for which the cost of including an additional participant becomes equal or higher than the value of the information gathered through this inclusion.ResultsOur method is illustrated through four examples. The first one is used to present the method in depth and describe how the sample size may vary according to the parameters' value. The three other examples are used to illustrate in different situations how the sample size may vary according to the ceiling cost-effectiveness ratio, and how it compares with a test statistic-based method. We developed an R package (EBASS) to run these calculations.ConclusionsOur sample size calculation method follows the value of information theory that is now recommended for analyzing and interpreting cost-effectiveness data, and sets the size of a study that balances its cost and the value of its information.
| S-EPMC6198488 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundSample size planning for longitudinal data is crucial when designing mediation studies because sufficient statistical power is not only required in grant applications and peer-reviewed publications, but is essential to reliable research results. However, sample size determination is not straightforward for mediation analysis of longitudinal design.MethodsTo facilitate planning the sample size for longitudinal mediation studies with a multilevel mediation model, this article provides the sample size required to achieve 80% power by simulations under various sizes of the mediation effect, within-subject correlations and numbers of repeated measures. The sample size calculation is based on three commonly used mediation tests: Sobel's method, distribution of product method and the bootstrap method.ResultsAmong the three methods of testing the mediation effects, Sobel's method required the largest sample size to achieve 80% power. Bootstrapping and the distribution of the product method performed similarly and were more powerful than Sobel's method, as reflected by the relatively smaller sample sizes. For all three methods, the sample size required to achieve 80% power depended on the value of the ICC (i.e., within-subject correlation). A larger value of ICC typically required a larger sample size to achieve 80% power. Simulation results also illustrated the advantage of the longitudinal study design. The sample size tables for most encountered scenarios in practice have also been published for convenient use.ConclusionsExtensive simulations study showed that the distribution of the product method and bootstrapping method have superior performance to the Sobel's method, but the product method was recommended to use in practice in terms of less computation time load compared to the bootstrapping method. A R package has been developed for the product method of sample size determination in mediation longitudinal study design.
| S-EPMC5870539 | biostudies-literature
Project description:HighlightsWe illustrate the steps involved in carrying out cost-effectiveness analysis using net benefit regressions with possibly censored demo data by providing step-by-step guidance and code applied to a data set.We demonstrate the importance of these new methods by illustrating how naïve methods for handling censoring can lead to biased cost-effectiveness results.
| S-EPMC10987289 | biostudies-literature