Case-crossover study designs are observational studies used to assess postmarket safety of medical products (eg, vaccines or drugs). As a case-crossover study is self-controlled, its advantages include better control for confounding because the design controls for any time-invariant measured and unmeasured confounding and potentially greater feasibility as only data from those experiencing an event (or cases) are required. However, self-matching also introduces correlation between case and control periods within a subject or matched unit. To estimate sample size in a case-crossover study, investigators currently use Dupont's formula (Biometrics 1988; 43:1157-1168), which was originally developed for a matched case-control study. This formula is relevant as it takes into account correlation in exposure between controls and cases, which are expected to be high in self-controlled studies. However, in our study, we show that Dupont's formula and other currently used methods to determine sample size for case-crossover studies may be inadequate. Specifically, these formulas tend to underestimate the true required sample size, determined through simulations, for a range of values in the parameter space. We present mathematical derivations to explain where some currently used methods fail and propose two new sample size estimation methods that provide a more accurate estimate of the true required sample size.
Keywords: case-crossover; correlation in exposure; matched case-control; sample size formula.
Published 2018. This article is a U.S. Government work and is in the public domain in the USA.
Wych J, Grayling MJ, Mander AP. Wych J, et al. Trials. 2019 Dec 2;20(1):665. doi: 10.1186/s13063-019-3724-6. Trials. 2019. PMID: 31791376 Free PMC article.
Forbes AB, Akram M, Pilcher D, Cooper J, Bellomo R. Forbes AB, et al. Clin Trials. 2015 Feb;12(1):34-44. doi: 10.1177/1740774514559610. Epub 2014 Dec 4. Clin Trials. 2015. PMID: 25475880
Weber D, Uhlmann L, Schönenberger S, Kieser M. Weber D, et al. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2019 Jul 16;19(1):150. doi: 10.1186/s12874-019-0763-3. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2019. PMID: 31311500 Free PMC article.
Brookes ST, Whitley E, Peters TJ, Mulheran PA, Egger M, Davey Smith G. Brookes ST, et al. Health Technol Assess. 2001;5(33):1-56. doi: 10.3310/hta5330. Health Technol Assess. 2001. PMID: 11701102 Review.
Maclure M, Mittleman MA. Maclure M, et al. Annu Rev Public Health. 2000;21:193-221. doi: 10.1146/annurev.publhealth.21.1.193. Annu Rev Public Health. 2000. PMID: 10884952 Review.
Gómez-Chávez P, Soriano-Avelar VM, Aguilar-Rodríguez A, Rojas-Russell M, Castro-Porras LV. Gómez-Chávez P, et al. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2024 Sep 3;24(1):578. doi: 10.1186/s12884-024-06748-w. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2024. PMID: 39227798 Free PMC article.
Morris NA, Wang Y, Felix RB, Rao A, Arnold S, Khalid M, Armahizer MJ, Murthi SB, Colloca L. Morris NA, et al. Pain. 2023 Sep 1;164(9):2122-2129. doi: 10.1097/j.pain.0000000000002914. Epub 2023 Apr 19. Pain. 2023. PMID: 37079851 Free PMC article. Clinical Trial.
Lewer D, Petersen I, Maclure M. Lewer D, et al. BMJ Med. 2022 May 31;1(1):e000214. doi: 10.1136/bmjmed-2022-000214. eCollection 2022. BMJ Med. 2022. PMID: 36936574 Free PMC article. No abstract available.
Gaulton TG, Pfeiffer MR, Metzger KB, Curry AE, Neuman MD. Gaulton TG, et al. Anesthesiology. 2023 Jun 1;138(6):602-610. doi: 10.1097/ALN.0000000000004558. Anesthesiology. 2023. PMID: 36912615 Free PMC article.
Li Y, Izem R. Li Y, et al. Ann Transl Med. 2022 Sep;10(18):1034. doi: 10.21037/atm-21-5496. Ann Transl Med. 2022. PMID: 36267797 Free PMC article. Review.