Sample size and power for McNemar's test with clustered data

Statistics in Medicine

Volumn 23, Issue 14, 2004, Pages 2283-2294

  Gönen, Mithat ^a  

^a MEMORIAL SLOAN KETTERING CANCER CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

Diagnostic testing; Intraclass correlation; Marginal homogeneity; Paired binary data; Symmetry

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CALCULATION; CLUSTER ANALYSIS; COLORECTAL CANCER; CONTROLLED STUDY; DATA ANALYSIS; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC TEST; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; LIVER METASTASIS; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MATHEMATICAL COMPUTING; MCNEMAR TEST; POSITRON EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; PROCESS MODEL; SAMPLE SIZE; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; STATISTICAL PARAMETERS;

CLUSTER ANALYSIS; COLORECTAL NEOPLASMS; COMPUTER SIMULATION; DATA INTERPRETATION, STATISTICAL; HUMANS; LIVER NEOPLASMS; RESEARCH DESIGN; SAMPLE SIZE; TOMOGRAPHY, EMISSION-COMPUTED;

EID: 3242756732     PISSN: 02776715     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/sim.1768     Document Type: Article

References (16)

1. Nuñez R, Macapinlac HA, Yeung HW, et al. Combined 18F-FDG and IIC-methionine pet scans in patients with newly progressive metastatic prostate cancer. Journal of Nuclear Medicine 2002; 43:46-55.
2. Eliasziw M, Donner A. Application of the McNemar test to non-independent matched pair data. Statistics in Medicine 1991; 10:1981-1991.
3. Betensky RA, Williams PL, Lederman HM. A comparison of models for clustered binary outcomes: Analysis of a designed immunology experiment. Applied Statistics 2001; 50(1):43-61.
4. Donald A, Donner A. Adjustments to the Mantel-Haenszel chi-square statistic and odds ratio variance estimator when the data are clustered (Corr: 97V16 p2927). Statistics in Medicine 1987; 6:491-499.
5. Donald A, Donner A. A simulation study of the analysis of sets of 2 × 2 contingency tables under cluster sampling: Estimation of a common odds ratio. Journal of the American Statistical Association 1990; 85: 537-543.
6. Donner A. Sample size requirements for stratified cluster randomization designs (Corr: 97V16 p2927). Statistics in Medicine 1992; 11:743-750.
7. Rao JNK, Scott AJ. A simple method for the analysis of clustered binary data. Biometrics 1992; 48:577-585.
8. Lee EW, Dubin N. Estimation and sample size considerations for clustered binary responses. Statistics in Medicine 1994; 13:1241-1252.
9. Jung SH, Kang SH, Ahn C. Sample size calculations for clustered binary data. Statistics in Medicine 2001; 20(13):1971-1982.
10. Obuchowski NA. On the comparison of correlated proportions for clustered data. Statistics in Medicine 1998; 17:1495-1507.
11. Miettinen OS. The matched pairs design in the case of all-or-none responses. Biometrics 1968; 24:339-352.
12. Lachenbruch PA. On the sample size for studies based upon McNemar's test. Statistics in Medicine 1992; 11:1521-1525.
13. Lachin JM. Power and sample size evaluation for the McNemar test with application to matched case-control studies. Statistics in Medicine 1992; 11:1239-1251.
14. Royston P. Exact conditional and unconditional sample size for pair-matched studies with binary outcome: A practical guide. Statistics in Medicine 1993; 12:699-712.
15. Ramos CD, Erdi YE, Gonen M, et al. FDG-PET standardized uptake values in normal anatomical structures using iterative reconstruction segmented attenuation correction and filtered back-projection. European Journal of Nuclear Medicine 2001; 28:155-164.
16. Etchebehere EC, Macapinlac HA, Gonen M, et al. Qualitative and quantitative comparison between images obtained with filtered back projection and iterative reconstruction in prostate cancer lesions of (18)F-FDG PET. Quarterly Journal of Nuclear Medicine 2002; 46:122-130.