Methods of sample size calculation in descriptive retrospective burden of illness studies

Abstract

BackgroundObservational burden of illness studies are used in pharmacoepidemiology to address a variety of objectives, including contextualizing the current treatment setting, identifying important treatment gaps, and providing estimates to parameterize economic models. Methodologies such as retrospective chart review may be utilized in settings for which existing datasets are not available or do not include sufficient clinical detail. While specifying the number of charts to be extracted and/or determining whether the number that can feasibly extracted will be clinically meaningful is an important study design consideration, there is a lack of rigorous methods available for sample size calculation in this setting. The objective of this study was to develop recommended sample size calculations for use in such studies.MethodsCalculations for identifying the optimal feasible sample size calculations were derived, for studies characterizing treatment patterns and medical costs, based on the ability to comprehensively observe treatments and maximize precision of resulting 95% confidence intervals. For cost outcomes, if the standard deviation is not known, the coefficient of variation cv can be used as an alternative. A case study of a chart review of advanced melanoma (MELODY) was used to characterize plausible values for cv in a real-world example.ResultsAcross sample sizes, any treatment given with greater than 1% frequency has a high likelihood of being observed. For a sample of size 200, and a treatment given to 5% of the population, the precision of a 95% confidence interval (CI) is expected to be ±0.03. For cost outcomes, for the median cv value observed in the MELODY study (0.72), a sample size of approximately 200 would be required to generate a 95% CI precise to within ±10% of the mean.ConclusionThis study presents a formal guidance on sample size calculations for retrospective burden of illness studies. The approach presented here is methodologically rigorous and designed for practical application in real-world retrospective chart review studies.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12874-018-0657-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Modelling the household cost of paediatric malaria treatment in a rural county in Kenya: do non-user fee payments matter? A partial cost of illness analysis

“…The survey was conducted across various health facilities ranging from level II to level V. Most of the participating children, 47.6% (121), had been treated in level IV facilities. Level II facilities had 26.8% (68) of the children; level III had 21.3% (54) and level V had 4.3% (11). Most participants, 55.5% (141), were 4-6 years old.…”

Socioeconomic, demographic and landscape factors associated with cutaneous leishmaniasis in Kurunegala District, Sri Lanka

“…Therefore, monitoring of their day to day activities, other than the main occupation is required. Furthermore, depending on the number of inhabitants in the study area, the ideal sample size for the study would be above 383 (at the 95% confidence level) [54]. Therefore, having only 101 patients for the study period is another limitation of this study.…”

Heterogeneity in transmissibility and shedding SARS-CoV-2 via droplets and aerosols

“…Two authors independently screened titles and abstracts, reviewed full texts, collected data and assessed risk of bias via Covidence and a hybrid critical appraisal checklist based on the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) tools for case series, analytical cross-sectional studies and prevalence studies 38-40 . To evaluate the sample size in a study, we used the following calculation: where n * is the sample size threshold, z is the z-score for the level of confidence (95%), σ is the standard deviation (assumed to be 3 log 10 copies/ml, one quarter of the full range of rVLs) and d is the marginal error (assumed to be 1 log 10 copies/ml, based on the minimum detection limit for qRT-PCR across studies) 41 . The hybrid JBI critical appraisal checklist is shown in the Supplementary Notes.…”

“…where ! * is the sample size threshold, # is the z-score for the level of confidence (95%), $ is the standard deviation (assumed to be 3 log10 copies/ml, one quarter of the full range of rVLs) and % is the marginal error (assumed to be 1 log10 copies/ml, based on the minimum detection limit for qRT-PCR across studies) 41 . The hybrid JBI critical appraisal checklist is shown in the Supplementary Notes.…”