Power Calculations to Select Instruments for Clinical Trial Secondary Endpoints. A Case Study of Instrument Selection for Post-Traumatic Stress Symptoms in Subjects with Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome.

Sjoding MW, Schoenfeld DA, Brown SM, Hough CL, Yealy DM, Moss M, Angus DC, Iwashyna TJ, NHLBI Prevention and Early Treatment of Acute Lung Injury (PETAL) Network. Power Calculations to Select Instruments for Clinical Trial Secondary Endpoints. A Case Study of Instrument Selection for Post-Traumatic Stress Symptoms in Subjects with Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome. Annals of the American Thoracic Society. 2017 Jan 1; 14(1):110-117.

Dimensions for VA is a web-based tool available to VA staff that enables detailed searches of published research and research projects.

If you have VA-Intranet access, click here for more information vaww.hsrd.research.va.gov/dimensions/

VA staff not currently on the VA network can access Dimensions by registering for an account using their VA email address.    Search Dimensions for VA for this citation
* Don't have VA-internal network access or a VA email address? Try searching the free-to-the-public version of Dimensions

Search for Abstract from PubMed

---

Abstract:

RATIONALE: After the sample size of a randomized clinical trial (RCT) is set by the power requirement of its primary endpoint, investigators select secondary endpoints while unable to further adjust sample size. How the sensitivity and specificity of an instrument used to measure these outcomes, together with their expected underlying event rates, affect an RCT's power to measure significant differences in these outcomes is poorly understood. OBJECTIVES: Motivated by the design of an RCT of neuromuscular blockade in acute respiratory distress syndrome, we examined how power to detect a difference in secondary endpoints varies with the sensitivity and specificity of the instrument used to measure such outcomes. METHODS: We derived a general formula and Stata code for calculating an RCT's power to detect differences in binary outcomes when such outcomes are measured with imperfect sensitivity and specificity. The formula informed the choice of instrument for measuring post-traumatic stress-like symptoms in the Reevaluation of Systemic Early Neuromuscular Blockade RCT ( www.clinicaltrials.gov identifier NCT02509078). MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: On the basis of published sensitivities and specificities, the Impact of Events Scale-Revised was predicted to measure a 36% symptom rate, whereas the Post-Traumatic Stress Symptoms instrument was predicted to measure a 23% rate, if the true underlying rate of post-traumatic stress symptoms were 25%. Despite its lower sensitivity, the briefer Post-Traumatic Stress Symptoms instrument provided superior power to detect a difference in rates between trial arms, owing to its higher specificity. CONCLUSIONS: Examining instruments' power to detect differences in outcomes may guide their selection when multiple instruments exist, each with different sensitivities and specificities.