Sample sizes of studies on diagnostic accuracy: literature survey.
Open accessAbstract
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.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Poor reporting of sample size rationale has also been observed by others.
“Poor reporting of sample size rationale has also been observed by others [3],[21],[68].”
From Reporting and Methods in Clinical Prediction Research: A Systematic Review (2012) · cites this paper as [68]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
A simulation study of the number of events per variable in logistic regression analysis
Peduzzi, P., Concato, J., Kemper, E., Holford, T. R., & Feinstein, A. R. (1996) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/s0895-4356(96)00236-3 · Cited by 9,655 · see citing works
The Statistical Evaluation of Medical Tests for Classification and Prediction
PEPE, M. S. (2005) · Technometrics · doi:10.1198/tech.2005.s278 · Cited by 1,907 · see citing works
Competing interests: none declared.
Hirsch, L. (2006) · Cited by 1,396 · see citing works
Sample size calculations in randomised trials: mandatory and mystical
Schulz, K. F., & Grimes, D. A. (2005) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(05)61034-3 · Cited by 549 · see citing works
Exploring sources of heterogeneity in systematic reviews of diagnostic tests
Lijmer, J. G., Bossuyt, P. M., & Heisterkamp, S. H. (2002) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/sim.1185 · Cited by 446 · see citing works
Self-citationIrwig, L. (2002) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.324.7338.669 · Cited by 246 · see citing works
Rutten, F. H., Moons, K. G. M., Cramer, M. J., Grobbee, D. E., Zuithoff, N. P. A., Lammers, A.-W. J., & Hoes, A. W. (2005) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.38664.661181.55 · Cited by 238 · see citing works
Test Research versus Diagnostic Research
Moons, K. G. M., Biesheuvel, C. J., & Grobbee, D. E. (2004) · Clinical Chemistry · doi:10.1373/clinchem.2003.024752 · Cited by 137 · see citing works
Sensitivity and Specificity should be De-emphasized in Diagnostic Accuracy Studies
Moons, K. G. M., & Harrell, F. E. (2003) · Academic Radiology · doi:10.1016/s1076-6332(03)80087-9 · Cited by 99 · see citing works
Rutten, F. H., Moons, K. G. M., Cramer, M. J., Grobbee, D. E., Zuithoff, N. P. A., Lammers, J. J., & Hoes, A. W. (2006) · Respiratory Medicine COPD Update · doi:10.1016/j.rmedu.2006.03.017 · Cited by 72 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- Bachmann LM, Puhan MA, ter Riet G, Bossuyt PM. Sample sizes of stud- ies on diagnostic accuracy: literature survey. BMJ 2006;332:1127-9.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
STARD 2015 guidelines for reporting diagnostic accuracy studies: explanation and elaboration
Cohen, J. F., Korevaar, D. A., Altman, D. G., Bruns, D. E., Gatsonis, C. A., Hooft, L., Irwig, L., Levine, D., Reitsma, J. B., de Vet, H. C. W., et al. (2016) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2016-012799 · Cited by 2,570 · see citing works
Self-citationSystematic Reviews of Diagnostic Test Accuracy
Leeflang, M. M. G., Deeks, J. J., Gatsonis, C., & Bossuyt, P. M. M. (2008) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-149-12-200812160-00008 · Cited by 1,124 · see citing works
Self-citationReporting and Methods in Clinical Prediction Research: A Systematic Review
Bouwmeester, W., Zuithoff, N. P. A., Mallett, S., Geerlings, M. I., Vergouwe, Y., Steyerberg, E. W., Altman, D. G., & Moons, K. G. M. (2012) · PLoS Medicine · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1001221 · Cited by 600 · see citing works
Kok, M. G. M., de Ronde, M. W. J., Moerland, P. D., Ruijter, J. M., Creemers, E. E., & Pinto-Sietsma, S. J. (2018) · Biomolecular Detection and Quantification · doi:10.1016/j.bdq.2017.11.002 · Cited by 105 · see citing works
Lefebvre, C., Glanville, J., Beale, S., Boachie, C., Duffy, S., Fraser, C., Harbour, J., McCool, R., & Smith, L. (2017) · Health Technology Assessment · doi:10.3310/hta21690 · Cited by 49 · see citing works
- Authors
- Bachmann, L. M., Puhan, M. A., Riet, G. T., & Bossuyt, P. M.
- Affiliations
- University of Bern (CH)
- University of Zurich (CH)
- Amsterdam UMC Location University of Amsterdam (NL)
- Corresponding author
- Bachmann, Lucas M
- Venue
- BMJ
- Publisher
- BMJ
- Published
- 2006-04-20
- Volume
- 332
- Issue
- 7550
- Pages
- 1127-1129
- ISSN
- 0007-1447 (ISSN-L)
- 0959-8138
- 1468-5833
- PMC
- PMC1459608
- OpenAlex
- W2136918916
- Cited by
- 184
- References
- 10
- Citations by year
- 2026: 7 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 14 · 2014: 12 · 2013: 11 · 2012: 13
- FWCI
- 9.11
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- BMJ (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
- BORIS (University Library Bern) (submittedVersion)
- HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
- Pure Amsterdam UMC (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Schweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen Forschung (103183, 103182)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Epidemiology
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
- Keywords
- sample size, diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity and specificity, subgroup analysis, prevalence, statistical power, reporting quality
- MeSH terms
- Humans, Sensitivity and Specificity, Confidence Intervals, Sample Size, Diagnostic Techniques and Procedures
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
