Testing non‐inferiority (and equivalence) between two diagnostic procedures in paired‐sample ordinal data

Before adopting a new diagnostic procedure, which is more convenient and less expensive than the standard existing procedure, it is essentially important to assess whether the diagnostic accuracy of the new procedure is non‐inferior (or equivalent) to that of the standard procedure. In this paper, we consider the situation where test responses are on an ordinal scale with more than two categories. We give two definitions of non‐inferiority, one in terms of the probability of correctly identifying the case for a randomly selected pair of a case and a non‐case over all possible cut‐off points, and the other in terms of both the sensitivity and specificity directly. On the basis of large sample theory, we develop two simple test procedures for detecting non‐inferiority. We further conduct Monte Carlo simulation to evaluate the finite sample performance of these test procedures. We note that the two asymptotic test procedures proposed here can actually perform reasonably well in a variety of situations even when the numbers of studied subjects from the diseased and non‐diseased populations are not large. To illustrate the use of the proposed test procedures, we include an example of determining whether the diagnostic accuracy of using a digitized film is non‐inferior to that of using a plain film for screening breast cancer. Finally, we note that the extension of these results to accommodate the case of detecting (two‐sided) equivalence is simply straightforward. Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

[1]  K. Lui Sample Size Determination for Repeated Measurements in Bioequivalence Test , 1997, Journal of Pharmacokinetics and Biopharmaceutics.

[2]  Xiao-Hua Zhou,et al.  Statistical Methods in Diagnostic Medicine , 2002 .

[3]  E. Baráth,et al.  Fundamentals of Biostatistics. , 1992 .

[4]  W W Hauck,et al.  A proposal for interpreting and reporting negative studies. , 1986, Statistics in medicine.

[5]  J A Bean,et al.  On the sample size for one-sided equivalence of sensitivities based upon McNemar's test. , 1995, Statistics in medicine.

[6]  W. Cumberland,et al.  Sample size determination for equivalence test using rate ratio of sensitivity and specificity in paired sample data. , 2001, Controlled clinical trials.

[7]  C. Dunnett,et al.  Significance testing to establish equivalence between treatments, with special reference to data in the form of 2X2 tables. , 1977, Biometrics.

[8]  C. Metz Basic principles of ROC analysis. , 1978, Seminars in nuclear medicine.

[9]  Westlake Wj,et al.  Statistical Aspects of Comparative Bioavailability Trials , 1979 .

[10]  Walter W. Hauck,et al.  A new statistical procedure for testing equivalence in two-group comparative bioavailability trials , 1984, Journal of Pharmacokinetics and Biopharmaceutics.

[11]  J M Nam,et al.  Establishing equivalence of two treatments and sample size requirements in matched-pairs design. , 1997, Biometrics.

[12]  Shein-Chung Chow,et al.  Sample size determination for the two one-sided tests procedure in bioequivalence , 1992, Journal of Pharmacokinetics and Biopharmaceutics.

[13]  W. Cumberland,et al.  A test procedure of equivalence in ordinal data with matched-pairs , 2001 .

[14]  Yi Tsong,et al.  Tests for Equivalence or Noninferiority Between Two Proportions , 2000 .

[15]  G. Campbell,et al.  Advances in statistical methodology for the evaluation of diagnostic and laboratory tests. , 1994, Statistics in medicine.

[16]  J. Hanley,et al.  The meaning and use of the area under a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. , 1982, Radiology.

[17]  Unconditional Exact Tests for Equivalence or Noninferiority for Paired Binary Endpoints , 2001, Biometrics.

[18]  E. DeLong,et al.  Comparing the areas under two or more correlated receiver operating characteristic curves: a nonparametric approach. , 1988, Biometrics.

[19]  Huey-miin Hsueh,et al.  Tests for equivalence or non‐inferiority for paired binary data , 2002, Statistics in medicine.