Discrimination-based sample size calculations for multivariable prognostic models for time-to-event data
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: Prognostic studies of time-to-event data, where researchers aim to develop or validate multivariable prognostic models in order to predict survival, are commonly seen in the medical literature; however, most are performed retrospectively and few consider sample size prior to analysis. Events per variable rules are sometimes cited, but these are based on bias and coverage of confidence intervals for model terms, which are not of primary interest when developing a model to predict outcome. In this paper we aim to develop sample size recommendations for multivariable models of time-to-event data, based on their prognostic ability. METHODS: We derive formulae for determining the sample size required for multivariable prognostic models in time-to-event data, based on a measure of discrimination, D, developed by Royston and Sauerbrei. These formulae fall into two categories: either based on the significance of the value of D in a new study compared to a previous estimate, or based on the precision of the estimate of D in a new study in terms of confidence interval width. Using simulation we show that they give the desired power and type I error and are not affected by random censoring. Additionally, we conduct a literature review to collate published values of D in different disease areas. RESULTS: We illustrate our methods using parameters from a published prognostic study in liver cancer. The resulting sample sizes can be large, and we suggest controlling study size by expressing the desired accuracy in the new study as a relative value as well as an absolute value. To improve usability we use the values of D obtained from the literature review to develop an equation to approximately convert the commonly reported Harrell's c-index to D. A flow chart is provided to aid decision making when using these methods. CONCLUSION: We have developed a suite of sample size calculations based on the prognostic ability of a survival model, rather than the magnitude or significance of model coefficients. We have taken care to develop the practical utility of the calculations and give recommendations for their use in contemporary clinical research.
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?
Royston and Sauerbrei's D index quantifies prognostic separation of survival curves and is closely related to the standard deviation of the prognostic index.
“This index quantifies prognostic separation of survival curves and is closely related to the standard deviation of the prognostic index, with Jinks et al. suggesting an equation to convert c values to D values based on empirical evidence25”
From A framework for meta-analysis of prediction model studies with binary and time-to-event outcomes (2019) · cites this paper as [25]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 33 · Cited by 32
- Authors
- Jinks, R. C., Royston, P., & Parmar, M. K.
- Affiliations
- MRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Royston, Patrick
- Venue
- BMC Medical Research Methodology
- Published
- 2015-10-12
- Volume
- 15
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 82-82
- ISSN
- 1471-2288 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC4603804
- OpenAlex
- W1952905287
- Cited by
- 32
- References
- 33
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 6 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 2
- FWCI
- 2.37
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- BMC Medical Research Methodology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Medical Research Council
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Epidemiology
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods and Inference
- Keywords
- sample size determination, time-to-event data, discrimination (statistics), Harrell's C-index, survival models, prognostic ability, random censoring, liver cancer, statistical power
- MeSH terms
- Algorithms, Decision Making, Humans, Liver Neoplasms, Models, Theoretical, Prognosis, Research Design, Sample Size
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