2003
DOI: 10.1136/emj.20.5.453
|View full text |Cite|
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

An introduction to power and sample size estimation

Abstract: The importance of power and sample size estimation for study design and analysis.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

3
389
0
8

Year Published

2006
2006
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 513 publications
(400 citation statements)
references
References 4 publications
3
389
0
8
Order By: Relevance
“…[20][21][22] Based on these data we used a standard deviation (SD) for cosmesis scores of 15 mm and calculated that with 30 subjects in each group, with an alpha error of 0.05, we would have 90% power to detect a 13-mm difference in cosmesis scores. 23 Using the confidence interval (CI) approach, noninferiority can be concluded if the absolute value for the lower boundary of the 95% CI for the difference in means between the two groups does not exceed 13 mm.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…[20][21][22] Based on these data we used a standard deviation (SD) for cosmesis scores of 15 mm and calculated that with 30 subjects in each group, with an alpha error of 0.05, we would have 90% power to detect a 13-mm difference in cosmesis scores. 23 Using the confidence interval (CI) approach, noninferiority can be concluded if the absolute value for the lower boundary of the 95% CI for the difference in means between the two groups does not exceed 13 mm.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A repeated measures t-test was conducted pre and post intervention with students and teacher participants. Estimates of the sample size required to achieve a power of .8, and a medium effect size of at least .5 indicated that the subject group needed to be at least 26 subjects to compare mean scores pre and post intervention (Jones, Carley, & Harrison, 2003).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…58 However, by using animals that have reached a plateau of unacceptable recovery at 3 months (as defined above), a 10% difference in recovery between control and treated animals could be detected with a power of 0.8 using as few as 30 dogs per group. 92 On assuming a spontaneous 50% recovery after loss of 'deep pain perception' following acute intervertebral disc extrusion, a 20% difference in proportion of recovering animals could be detected with a power of 0.8 with 60 dogs in each group. Bearing in mind the high incidence of SCI in dogs, both these group sizes can readily be attained.…”
Section: Patient Selectionmentioning
confidence: 97%