Literature DB >> 33933866

Sample size estimation for biomechanical waveforms: Current practice, recommendations and a comparison to discrete power analysis.

Mark A Robinson1, Jos Vanrenterghem2, Todd C Pataky3.   

Abstract

Testing a prediction is fundamental to scientific experiments. Where biomechanical experiments involve analysis of 1-Dimensional (waveform) data, sample size estimation should consider both 1D variance and hypothesised 1D effects. This study exemplifies 1D sample size estimation using typical biomechanical signals and contrasts this with 0D (discrete) power analysis. For context, biomechanics papers from 2018 and 2019 were reviewed to characterise current practice. Sample size estimation occurred in approximately 4% of 653 papers and reporting practice was mixed. To estimate sample sizes, common biomechanical signals were sourced from the literature and 1D effects were generated artificially using the open-source power1d software. Smooth Gaussian noise was added to the modelled 1D effect to numerically estimate the sample size required. Sample sizes estimated using 1D power procedures varied according to the characteristics of the dataset, requiring only small-to-moderate sample sizes of approximately 5-40 to achieve target powers of 0.8 for reported 1D effects, but were always larger than 0D sample sizes (from N + 1 to >N + 20). The importance of a priori sample size estimation is highlighted and recommendations are provided to improve the consistency of reporting. This study should enable researchers to construct 1D biomechanical effects to address adequately powered, hypothesis-driven, predictive research questions.
Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords:  Hypothesis testing; Numerical simulation; Statistical parametric mapping; Statistical power; Waveform analysis

Year:  2021        PMID: 33933866     DOI: 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2021.110451

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Biomech        ISSN: 0021-9290            Impact factor:   2.712


  4 in total

1.  Compensatory Responses During Slip-Induced Perturbation in Patients With Knee Osteoarthritis Compared With Healthy Older Adults: An Increased Risk of Falls?

Authors:  Xiping Ren; Christoph Lutter; Maeruan Kebbach; Sven Bruhn; Qining Yang; Rainer Bader; Thomas Tischer
Journal:  Front Bioeng Biotechnol       Date:  2022-06-15

2.  Implant characteristics affect in vivo shoulder kinematics during multiplanar functional motions after reverse shoulder arthroplasty.

Authors:  Christopher Como; Clarissa LeVasseur; Gillian Kane; Ajinkya Rai; Maria Munsch; Alexandra Gabrielli; Jonathan Hughes; William Anderst; Albert Lin
Journal:  J Biomech       Date:  2022-03-12       Impact factor: 2.789

3.  Comparison of three-dimensional body centre of mass trajectories during locomotion through zero- and one-dimensional statistics.

Authors:  Francesco Luciano; Luca Ruggiero; Alberto Minetti; Gaspare Pavei
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2022-10-22       Impact factor: 4.996

4.  Lower extremity joint compensatory effects during the first recovery step following slipping and stumbling perturbations in young and older subjects.

Authors:  Xiping Ren; Christoph Lutter; Maeruan Kebbach; Sven Bruhn; Rainer Bader; Thomas Tischer
Journal:  BMC Geriatr       Date:  2022-08-10       Impact factor: 4.070

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.