Literature DB >> 15632258

Ethics and sample size.

Peter Bacchetti1, Leslie E Wolf, Mark R Segal, Charles E McCulloch.   

Abstract

The belief is widespread that studies are unethical if their sample size is not large enough to ensure adequate power. The authors examine how sample size influences the balance that determines the ethical acceptability of a study: the balance between the burdens that participants accept and the clinical or scientific value that a study can be expected to produce. The average projected burden per participant remains constant as the sample size increases, but the projected study value does not increase as rapidly as the sample size if it is assumed to be proportional to power or inversely proportional to confidence interval width. This implies that the value per participant declines as the sample size increases and that smaller studies therefore have more favorable ratios of projected value to participant burden. The ethical treatment of study participants therefore does not require consideration of whether study power is less than the conventional goal of 80% or 90%. Lower power does not make a study unethical. The analysis addresses only ethical acceptability, not optimality; large studies may be desirable for other than ethical reasons.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Biomedical and Behavioral Research

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 15632258     DOI: 10.1093/aje/kwi014

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Epidemiol        ISSN: 0002-9262            Impact factor:   4.897


  34 in total

Review 1.  Partnership as an ethical model for medical research in developing countries: the example of the "implementation trial".

Authors:  D W Dowdy
Journal:  J Med Ethics       Date:  2006-06       Impact factor: 2.903

2.  Small sample size is not the real problem.

Authors:  Peter Bacchetti
Journal:  Nat Rev Neurosci       Date:  2013-07-03       Impact factor: 34.870

3.  Statistics in brief: the importance of sample size in the planning and interpretation of medical research.

Authors:  David Jean Biau; Solen Kernéis; Raphaël Porcher
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2008-06-20       Impact factor: 4.176

4.  Simple, defensible sample sizes based on cost efficiency.

Authors:  Peter Bacchetti; Charles E McCulloch; Mark R Segal
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  2008-06       Impact factor: 2.571

5.  Methods and Biostatistics: a concise guide for peer reviewers.

Authors:  A Kyrgidis; S Triaridis
Journal:  Hippokratia       Date:  2010-12       Impact factor: 0.471

6.  Bayes factor design analysis: Planning for compelling evidence.

Authors:  Felix D Schönbrodt; Eric-Jan Wagenmakers
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2018-02

7.  Doing clinical trials large enough to achieve adequate reductions in uncertainties about treatment effects.

Authors:  Michael J Campbell
Journal:  J R Soc Med       Date:  2013-02       Impact factor: 5.344

8.  Breaking free of sample size dogma to perform innovative translational research.

Authors:  Peter Bacchetti; Steven G Deeks; Joseph M McCune
Journal:  Sci Transl Med       Date:  2011-06-15       Impact factor: 17.956

Review 9.  Experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis in the common marmoset: a translationally relevant model for the cause and course of multiple sclerosis.

Authors:  Bert A 't Hart
Journal:  Primate Biol       Date:  2019-05-10

Review 10.  Reporting of sample size calculation in randomised controlled trials: review.

Authors:  Pierre Charles; Bruno Giraudeau; Agnes Dechartres; Gabriel Baron; Philippe Ravaud
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2009-05-12
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.