IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/biomet/v79y2023i3p2489-2502.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Bayesian sample size calculations for comparing two strategies in SMART studies

Author

Listed:
  • Armando Turchetta
  • Erica E. M. Moodie
  • David A. Stephens
  • Sylvie D. Lambert

Abstract

In the management of most chronic conditions characterized by the lack of universally effective treatments, adaptive treatment strategies (ATSs) have grown in popularity as they offer a more individualized approach. As a result, sequential multiple assignment randomized trials (SMARTs) have gained attention as the most suitable clinical trial design to formalize the study of these strategies. While the number of SMARTs has increased in recent years, sample size and design considerations have generally been carried out in frequentist settings. However, standard frequentist formulae require assumptions on interim response rates and variance components. Misspecifying these can lead to incorrect sample size calculations and correspondingly inadequate levels of power. The Bayesian framework offers a straightforward path to alleviate some of these concerns. In this paper, we provide calculations in a Bayesian setting to allow more realistic and robust estimates that account for uncertainty in inputs through the ‘two priors’ approach. Additionally, compared to the standard frequentist formulae, this methodology allows us to rely on fewer assumptions, integrate pre‐trial knowledge, and switch the focus from the standardized effect size to the MDD. The proposed methodology is evaluated in a thorough simulation study and is implemented to estimate the sample size for a full‐scale SMART of an internet‐based adaptive stress management intervention on cardiovascular disease patients using data from its pilot study conducted in two Canadian provinces.

Suggested Citation

  • Armando Turchetta & Erica E. M. Moodie & David A. Stephens & Sylvie D. Lambert, 2023. "Bayesian sample size calculations for comparing two strategies in SMART studies," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 79(3), pages 2489-2502, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:biomet:v:79:y:2023:i:3:p:2489-2502
    DOI: 10.1111/biom.13813
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/biom.13813
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/biom.13813?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. P. W. Lavori & R. Dawson, 2000. "A design for testing clinical strategies: biased adaptive within‐subject randomization," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 163(1), pages 29-38.
    2. De Santis, Fulvio, 2006. "Sample Size Determination for Robust Bayesian Analysis," Journal of the American Statistical Association, American Statistical Association, vol. 101, pages 278-291, March.
    3. Lu Wang & Andrea Rotnitzky & Xihong Lin & Randall E. Millikan & Peter F. Thall, 2012. "Evaluation of Viable Dynamic Treatment Regimes in a Sequentially Randomized Trial of Advanced Prostate Cancer," Journal of the American Statistical Association, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 107(498), pages 493-508, June.
    4. Murphy S.A. & van der Laan M.J. & Robins J.M., 2001. "Marginal Mean Models for Dynamic Regimes," Journal of the American Statistical Association, American Statistical Association, vol. 96, pages 1410-1423, December.
    5. S. K. Sahu & T. M. F. Smith, 2006. "A Bayesian method of sample size determination with practical applications," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 169(2), pages 235-253, March.
    6. Kelley M. Kidwell & Nicholas J. Seewald & Qui Tran & Connie Kasari & Daniel Almirall, 2018. "Design and analysis considerations for comparing dynamic treatment regimens with binary outcomes from sequential multiple assignment randomized trials," Journal of Applied Statistics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 45(9), pages 1628-1651, July.
    7. Kevin Kunzmann & Michael J. Grayling & Kim May Lee & David S. Robertson & Kaspar Rufibach & James M. S. Wason, 2021. "A Review of Bayesian Perspectives on Sample Size Derivation for Confirmatory Trials," The American Statistician, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 75(4), pages 424-432, October.
    8. Pierpaolo Brutti & Fulvio Santis & Stefania Gubbiotti, 2014. "Bayesian-frequentist sample size determination: a game of two priors," METRON, Springer;Sapienza Università di Roma, vol. 72(2), pages 133-151, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Fulvio De Santis & Stefania Gubbiotti, 2021. "On the predictive performance of a non-optimal action in hypothesis testing," Statistical Methods & Applications, Springer;Società Italiana di Statistica, vol. 30(2), pages 689-709, June.
    2. Ali Karimnezhad & Ahmad Parsian, 2018. "Most stable sample size determination in clinical trials," Statistical Methods & Applications, Springer;Società Italiana di Statistica, vol. 27(3), pages 437-454, August.
    3. Chaffee Paul H. & van der Laan Mark J., 2012. "Targeted Maximum Likelihood Estimation for Dynamic Treatment Regimes in Sequentially Randomized Controlled Trials," The International Journal of Biostatistics, De Gruyter, vol. 8(1), pages 1-32, June.
    4. Markus Frölich & Martin Huber, 2014. "Treatment Evaluation With Multiple Outcome Periods Under Endogeneity and Attrition," Journal of the American Statistical Association, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 109(508), pages 1697-1711, December.
    5. Jörg Martin & Clemens Elster, 2021. "The variation of the posterior variance and Bayesian sample size determination," Statistical Methods & Applications, Springer;Società Italiana di Statistica, vol. 30(4), pages 1135-1155, October.
    6. Pierpaolo Brutti & Fulvio Santis & Stefania Gubbiotti, 2014. "Bayesian-frequentist sample size determination: a game of two priors," METRON, Springer;Sapienza Università di Roma, vol. 72(2), pages 133-151, August.
    7. Fulvio De Santis & Stefania Gubbiotti, 2021. "Sample Size Requirements for Calibrated Approximate Credible Intervals for Proportions in Clinical Trials," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(2), pages 1-11, January.
    8. Nina Zhou & Lu Wang & Daniel Almirall, 2023. "Estimating tree‐based dynamic treatment regimes using observational data with restricted treatment sequences," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 79(3), pages 2260-2271, September.
    9. Jin Wang & Donglin Zeng & D. Y. Lin, 2022. "Semiparametric single-index models for optimal treatment regimens with censored outcomes," Lifetime Data Analysis: An International Journal Devoted to Statistical Methods and Applications for Time-to-Event Data, Springer, vol. 28(4), pages 744-763, October.
    10. Early Kirstin & Mankoff Jennifer & Fienberg Stephen E., 2017. "Dynamic Question Ordering in Online Surveys," Journal of Official Statistics, Sciendo, vol. 33(3), pages 625-657, September.
    11. Jelena Bradic & Weijie Ji & Yuqian Zhang, 2021. "High-dimensional Inference for Dynamic Treatment Effects," Papers 2110.04924, arXiv.org, revised May 2023.
    12. Han, Sukjin, 2021. "Identification in nonparametric models for dynamic treatment effects," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 225(2), pages 132-147.
    13. Hamsa Bastani & David Simchi-Levi & Ruihao Zhu, 2022. "Meta Dynamic Pricing: Transfer Learning Across Experiments," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 68(3), pages 1865-1881, March.
    14. Anders Bredahl Kock & Martin Thyrsgaard, 2017. "Optimal sequential treatment allocation," Papers 1705.09952, arXiv.org, revised Aug 2018.
    15. Xiaofei Chen & Daniel F. Heitjan & Gerald Greil & Haekyung Jeon‐Slaughter, 2021. "Estimating the optimal timing of surgery from observational data," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 77(2), pages 729-739, June.
    16. Yiwang Zhou & Peter X.K. Song & Haoda Fu, 2021. "Net benefit index: Assessing the influence of a biomarker for individualized treatment rules," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 77(4), pages 1254-1264, December.
    17. Thomas A. Murray & Peter F. Thall & Ying Yuan & Sarah McAvoy & Daniel R. Gomez, 2017. "Robust Treatment Comparison Based on Utilities of Semi-Competing Risks in Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer," Journal of the American Statistical Association, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 112(517), pages 11-23, January.
    18. Hui Quan & Xiaofei Chen & Xun Chen & Xiaodong Luo, 2022. "Assessments of Conditional and Unconditional Type I Error Probabilities for Bayesian Hypothesis Testing with Historical Data Borrowing," Statistics in Biosciences, Springer;International Chinese Statistical Association, vol. 14(1), pages 139-157, April.
    19. Hao, Meiling & Su, Pingfan & Hu, Liyuan & Szabo, Zoltan & Zhao, Qianyu & Shi, Chengchun, 2024. "Forward and backward state abstractions for off-policy evaluation," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 124074, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    20. Michael P. Wallace & Erica E. M. Moodie, 2015. "Doubly‐robust dynamic treatment regimen estimation via weighted least squares," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 71(3), pages 636-644, September.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:biomet:v:79:y:2023:i:3:p:2489-2502. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0006-341X .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.