Literature DB >> 11880910

Effect of continuous versus dichotomous outcome variables on study power when sample sizes of orthopaedic randomized trials are small.

Mohit Bhandari1, Heather Lochner, Paul Tornetta.   

Abstract

It is often not feasible to conduct large trials in orthopaedic surgery. Therefore, surgeons must identify strategies to optimize the statistical power of their smaller studies. The aim of this study was to compare study power in randomized trials with continuous versus dichotomous outcome variables. We performed a systematic review of the literature to identify randomized trials in orthopaedic trauma. Of these, we examined only those trials with small sample sizes (50 patients or less). The outcomes in each eligible study were categorized as continuous or dichotomous. Standard power calculations were performed for each study, and comparisons were made between continuous and dichotomous outcome variables. We identified 196 randomized trials in orthopaedic trauma. Of these, 76 trials had a sample size of 50 patients or fewer (29 trials with continuous outcomes, 47 trials with dichotomous outcomes). Studies that reported continuous outcomes had a significantly higher mean power than those that reported dichotomous variables (power 49% vs 38%, p=0.042). Twice as many trials with continuous outcome variables reached acceptable levels of study power (i.e. >80% power) when compared with trials with dichotomous variables (37% vs 18.6%, p=0.04). When orthopaedic surgeons anticipate small sample sizes for their study, they can optimize their study's statistical power by choosing a continuous outcome variable.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2001        PMID: 11880910     DOI: 10.1007/s004020100347

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Arch Orthop Trauma Surg        ISSN: 0936-8051            Impact factor:   3.067


  24 in total

Review 1.  Bioequivalence for topical products--an update.

Authors:  Yogeeta Narkar
Journal:  Pharm Res       Date:  2010-09-22       Impact factor: 4.200

2.  Aneurysm Recurrence Volumetry Is More Sensitive than Visual Evaluation of Aneurysm Recurrences.

Authors:  M H Schönfeld; V Schlotfeldt; N D Forkert; E Goebell; M Groth; E Vettorazzi; Y D Cho; M H Han; H-S Kang; J Fiehler
Journal:  Clin Neuroradiol       Date:  2014-08-27       Impact factor: 3.649

3.  Association of serum lipid levels with retinal hard exudate area in African Americans with type 2 diabetes.

Authors:  Evangelia Papavasileiou; Samaneh Davoudi; Ramak Roohipoor; Heeyoon Cho; Shreyas Kudrimoti; Heather Hancock; James G Wilson; Christopher Andreoli; Deeba Husain; Maurice James; Alan Penman; Ching J Chen; Lucia Sobrin
Journal:  Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol       Date:  2016-09-15       Impact factor: 3.117

4.  Expressive social support buffers the impact of care-related work interruptions on caregivers' depressive symptoms.

Authors:  Shannon Ang; Rahul Malhotra
Journal:  Aging Ment Health       Date:  2017-04-20       Impact factor: 3.658

5.  SPIRIT 2013 explanation and elaboration: guidance for protocols of clinical trials.

Authors:  An-Wen Chan; Jennifer M Tetzlaff; Peter C Gøtzsche; Douglas G Altman; Howard Mann; Jesse A Berlin; Kay Dickersin; Asbjørn Hróbjartsson; Kenneth F Schulz; Wendy R Parulekar; Karmela Krleza-Jeric; Andreas Laupacis; David Moher
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2013-01-08

6.  The relative efficiency of time-to-threshold and rate of change in longitudinal data.

Authors:  M C Donohue; A C Gamst; R G Thomas; R Xu; L Beckett; R C Petersen; M W Weiner; P Aisen
Journal:  Contemp Clin Trials       Date:  2011-04-30       Impact factor: 2.226

7.  Quantification of recurrence volumes after endovascular treatment of cerebral aneurysm as surrogate endpoint for treatment stability.

Authors:  Thorsten Ries; Karl Wegscheider; Asmus Wulff; Kristin Radelfahr; Dennis Säring; Nils Daniel Forkert; Jens Fiehler
Journal:  Neuroradiology       Date:  2010-09-17       Impact factor: 2.804

8.  Outcome measurements in orthopedic.

Authors:  Mohit Bhandari; Brad Petrisor; Emil Schemitsch
Journal:  Indian J Orthop       Date:  2007-01       Impact factor: 1.251

9.  How to write a grant proposal.

Authors:  Michael Zlowodzki; Anders Jönsson; Philip J Kregor; Mohit Bhandari
Journal:  Indian J Orthop       Date:  2007-01       Impact factor: 1.251

10.  At Odds: Concerns Raised by Using Odds Ratios for Continuous or Common Dichotomous Outcomes in Research on Physical Activity and Obesity.

Authors:  Gina S Lovasi; Lindsay J Underhill; Darby Jack; Catherine Richards; Christopher Weiss; Andrew Rundle
Journal:  Open Epidemiol J       Date:  2012
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.