The answer depends entirely upon how cleverly the monsters coordinate their actions and abilities, and the same for the PCs. For example, if one side applies focused fire (i.e. everyone on one side attacks one member of the other until that individual goes down, then switches to the next one), they will be able to take down groups of similarly strong opponents that are ~40% more numerous than themselves (in the absence of healing). If one side has entirely area-of-effect damaging spells, then doubling both sides will quadruple the damage output of the AOEers; to retain parity, the non-AOEers will have to increase their size by the square of what the AOEers do (e.g. twice as many AOEers vs. 4x as many non-AOEers). AOE healing is less effective but still quite potent (to the 3/2 power, approximately; 4x more AOE healers vs. 8x non-AOE healers is approximately a match).
Given these sorts of major effects, and other clever tactics that work well in combination (e.g. paralysis works well in combination with low-level area damage-over-time effects like walls of fire) that you cannot necessarily predict on the part of the players (even if they're available, the players may not realize to use them), the only thing you can do is see how effective they actually are and adjust. You have to do this anyway with small groups; the variability between well-executed strategy and complementarity, and poor strategy and complementarity, just increases.
Until you have recalibrated yourself to the players' effectiveness, you are probably best off designing encounters where you can adjust the number of opponents to fit. (Just keep in mind that doubling the number of monsters approximately quadruples the difficulty, since they have both double damage output and double hit points to get through (unless your players all do only AOE damage, which would be very weird), so if 7 players have an easy time with 10 monsters, they may well be utterly overwhelmed with 20.)