Search PubMedSearch

PubMed · 8341867

Sample size determinations using logistic regression with pilot data.

Abstract

Suppose the goal of a projected study is to estimate accurately the value of a 'prediction' proportion p that is specific to a given set of covariates. Available pilot data show that (1) the covariates are influential in determining the value of p and (2) their relationship to p can be modelled as a logistic regression. A sample size justification for the projected study can be based on the logistic model; the resulting sample sizes not only are more reasonable than the usual binomial sample size values from a scientific standpoint (since they are based on a model that is more realistic), but also give smaller prediction standard errors than the binomial approach with the same sample size. In appropriate situations, the logistic-based sample sizes could make the difference between a feasible proposal and an unfeasible, binomial-based proposal. An example using pilot study data of dental radiographs demonstrates the methods.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

V F Flack, T L Eudey. 1993-06-15. Sample size determinations using logistic regression with pilot data.. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.4780121107

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Prevalence of smoking in early pregnancy by census area: measured by anonymous cotinine testing of residual antenatal blood samples.

AIM: To accurately measure the prevalence of smoking in early pregnancy by census area units (CAU) in Christchurch. METHODS: Smoking status in pregnancy was determined by serum cotinine assay for all antenatal blood samples taken over a 6 month period. CAUs in Christchurch were grouped into quartiles according to the proportion of maternal smokers. Social factors from 1991 census data were used to describe the characteristics of each quartile. RESULTS: The overall rate of smoking in pregnancy was 33.0%. Rates ranged from 10.6% to 56.9% for the census area groups. CAUs in the upper quartile (39-57% of women smoking in pregnancy) were clustered together geographically and were associated with lower socioeconomic indices. The strongest correlation was between average income with smoking rates (Pearson correlation coefficient 0.76). CONCLUSION: Smoking rates in pregnancy have remained at around 30% for at least 20 years, with some areas of the city having rates nearly double this. It would seem logical to promote smoke-free pregnancy activities in localities with the highest rates of smoking. Future evaluation of the efficacy of such programmes should be done using objective measurements.

Confidence Intervals