Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2006 May 13;332(7550):1127-9.
doi: 10.1136/bmj.38793.637789.2F. Epub 2006 Apr 20.

Sample sizes of studies on diagnostic accuracy: literature survey

Lucas M Bachmann  1 , Milo A Puhan, Gerben ter Riet, Patrick M Bossuyt
Affiliations
Review

Sample sizes of studies on diagnostic accuracy: literature survey

Lucas M Bachmann et al. BMJ. .

Abstract

Objectives: To determine sample sizes in studies on diagnostic accuracy and the proportion of studies that report calculations of sample size.

Design: Literature survey.

Data sources: All issues of eight leading journals published in 2002.

Methods: Sample sizes, number of subgroup analyses, and how often studies reported calculations of sample size were extracted.

Results: 43 of 8999 articles were non-screening studies on diagnostic accuracy. The median sample size was 118 (interquartile range 71-350) and the median prevalence of the target condition was 43% (27-61%). The median number of patients with the target condition--needed to calculate a test's sensitivity--was 49 (28-91). The median number of patients without the target condition--needed to determine a test's specificity--was 76 (27-209). Two of the 43 studies (5%) reported a priori calculations of sample size. Twenty articles (47%) reported results for patient subgroups. The number of subgroups ranged from two to 19 (median four). No studies reported that sample size was calculated on the basis of preplanned analyses of subgroups.

Conclusion: Few studies on diagnostic accuracy report considerations of sample size. The number of participants in most studies on diagnostic accuracy is probably too small to analyse variability of measures of accuracy across patient subgroups.

PubMed Disclaimer

Comment in

References

    1. Irwig L, Bossuyt P, Glasziou P, Gatsonis C, Lijmer J. Designing studies to ensure that estimates of test accuracy are transferable. BMJ 2002;324: 669-71. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Schulz KF, Grimes DA. Sample size calculations in randomised trials: mandatory and mystical. Lancet 2005; 365: 1348-53. - PubMed
    1. Lijmer JG, Bossuyt PM, Heisterkamp SH. Exploring sources of heterogeneity in systematic reviews of diagnostic tests. Stat Med 2002;21: 1525-37. - PubMed
    1. Pepe MS. The statistical evaluation of medical tests for classification and prediction. Oxford Statistical Science Series, Oxford University Press, 2003. www.fhcrc.org/science/labs/pepe/book/ (accessed 6 Apr 2006).
    1. Pepe MS. Study design and hypothesis testing. In: The statistical evaluation of medical tests for classification and prediction. New York: Oxford University Press, 2003: 214-51.

Publication types