Sample Size Calculation of Exact Tests for the Weak Causal Null Hypothesis in Randomized Trials with a Binary Outcome
- 1 Clinical Research Center, Kinki University Hospital, Osaka, Japan
Abstract
The main purpose in many randomized trials is to make an inference about the average causal effect of a treatment. Therefore, on a binary outcome, the null hypothesis for the hypothesis test should be that the causal risks are equal in the two groups. This null hypothesis is referred to as the weak causal null hypothesis. Nevertheless, at present, hypothesis tests applied in actual randomized trials are not for this null hypothesis; Fisher’s exact test is a test for the sharp causal null hypothesis that the causal effect of treatment is the same for all subjects. In general, the rejection of the sharp causal null hypothesis does not mean that the weak causal null hypothesis is rejected. Recently, Chiba developed new exact tests for the weak causal null hypothesis: a conditional exact test, which requires that a marginal total is fixed, and an unconditional exact test, which does not require that a marginal total is fixed and depends rather on the ratio of random assignment. To apply these exact tests in actual randomized trials, it is inevitable that the sample size calculation must be performed during the study design. In this paper, we present a sample size calculation procedure for these exact tests. Given the sample size, the procedure can derive the exact test power, because it examines all the patterns that can be obtained as observed data under the alternative hypothesis without large sample theories and any assumptions.
- Fisher, R.A. (1926) The Arrangement of Field Experiments. Journal of the Ministry of Agriculture of Great Britain, 33, 503-513.
- Fisher, R.A. (1966) The Design of Experiments. 8th Edition, Oliver and Boyd, Edinburgh.
- Copas, J.B. (1973) Randomization Models for the Matched and Unmatched 2×2 Tables. Biometrika, 60, 467-476. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2334995
- Robins, J.M. (1988) Confidence Intervals for Causal Parameters. Statistics in Medicine, 7, 773-785. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/sim.4780070707
- Greenland, S. (1992) On the Logical Justification of Conditional Tests for Two-by-Two Contingency Tables. American Statistician, 45, 248-251.
- Chiba, Y. (2015) Exact Tests for the Weak Causal Null Hypothesis on a Binary Outcome in Randomized Trials. Journal of Biometrics and Biostatistics, 6, 244. http://dx.doi.org/10.4172/2155-6180.1000244
- Moher, D., Hopewell, S., Schlz, K.F., Montori, V., GØtzsche, P., Devereaux, P.J., Elbourne, D., Egger, M. and Altman, D.G. (2010) CONSORT 2010 Explanation and Elaboration: Updated Guidelines for Reporting Parallel Group Randomised Trials. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 63, e1-e37. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.03.004
- Walters, D.E. (1979) In Defense of the Arc Sine Approximation. The Statistician, 28, 219-222. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2987871
- Fleiss, J.L., Tytun, A. and Ury, H.K. (1980) A Simple Approximation for Calculating Sample Size for Comparing Independent Proportions. Biometrics, 36, 343-346. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2529990
- Ury, H.K. (1981) Continuity-Corrected Approximations to Sample Size or Power When Comparing Two Proportions: Chi-Squared or Arc Sine? The Statistician, 30, 199-203. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2988050
- Dobson, A.J. and Gebski, V.J. (1986) Sample Size for Comparing Two Independent Proportions Using the Continuity-Corrected Arc Sine Transformation. The Statistician, 35, 51-53. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2988298
- Vorburger, M. and Munoz, B. (2009) Approximations to Power When Comparing Two Small Independent Proportions. Journal of Modern Applied Statistical Methods, 8, 17.
- Rubin, D.B. (1978) Bayesian Inference for Causal Effects: The Role of Randomization. Annals of Statistics, 6, 34-58. http://dx.doi.org/10.1214/aos/1176344064
- Rubin, D.B. (1990) Formal Models of Statistical Inference for Causal Effects. Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference, 25, 279-292. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0378-3758(90)90077-8