Literature DB >> 35226185

Statistical Power and Swallowing Rehabilitation Research: Current Landscape and Next Steps.

James C Borders1, Alessandro A Grande2, Michelle S Troche3.   

Abstract

Despite rapid growth in the number of treatments to rehabilitate dysphagia, studies often demonstrate mixed results with non-significant changes to functional outcomes. Given that power analyses are infrequently reported in dysphagia research, it remains unclear whether studies are adequately powered to detect a range of treatment effects. Therefore, this review sought to examine the current landscape of statistical power in swallowing rehabilitation research. Databases were searched for swallowing treatments using instrumental evaluations of swallowing and the penetration-aspiration scale as an outcome. Sensitivity power analyses based on each study's statistical test and sample size were performed to determine the minimum effect size detectable with 80% power. Eighty-nine studies with 94 treatment comparisons were included. Sixty-seven percent of treatment comparisons were unable to detect effects smaller than d = 0.80. The smallest detectable effect size was d = 0.29 for electrical stimulation, d = 0.49 for postural maneuvers, d = 0.52 for non-invasive brain stimulation, d = 0.61 for combined treatments, d = 0.63 for respiratory-based interventions, d = 0.70 for lingual strengthening, and d = 0.79 for oral sensory stimulation. Dysphagia treatments examining changes in penetration-aspiration scale scores were generally powered to reliably detect larger effect sizes and not smaller (but potentially clinically meaningful) effects. These findings suggest that non-significant results may be related to low statistical power, highlighting the need for collaborative, well-powered intervention studies that can detect smaller, clinically meaningful changes in swallowing function. To facilitate implementation, a tutorial on simulation-based power analyses for ordinal outcomes is provided ( https://osf.io/e6usd/ ).
© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Deglutition disorders; Dysphagia; Meta-science; Statistical power; Swallowing rehabilitation

Year:  2022        PMID: 35226185     DOI: 10.1007/s00455-022-10428-2

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Dysphagia        ISSN: 0179-051X            Impact factor:   3.438


  98 in total

Review 1.  Physiological variability in the deglutition literature: hyoid and laryngeal kinematics.

Authors:  Sonja M Molfenter; Catriona M Steele
Journal:  Dysphagia       Date:  2010-10-07       Impact factor: 3.438

2.  The false-positive to false-negative ratio in epidemiologic studies.

Authors:  John P A Ioannidis; Robert Tarone; Joseph K McLaughlin
Journal:  Epidemiology       Date:  2011-07       Impact factor: 4.822

Review 3.  Statistical, practical, clinical, and personal significance: definitions and applications in speech-language pathology.

Authors:  Anne K Bothe; Jessica D Richardson
Journal:  Am J Speech Lang Pathol       Date:  2011-04-08       Impact factor: 2.408

4.  Beyond Power Calculations: Assessing Type S (Sign) and Type M (Magnitude) Errors.

Authors:  Andrew Gelman; John Carlin
Journal:  Perspect Psychol Sci       Date:  2014-11

5.  Big Correlations in Little Studies: Inflated fMRI Correlations Reflect Low Statistical Power-Commentary on Vul et al. (2009).

Authors:  Tal Yarkoni
Journal:  Perspect Psychol Sci       Date:  2009-05

Review 6.  Efficacy of exercises to rehabilitate dysphagia: A critique of the literature.

Authors:  Susan E Langmore; Jessica M Pisegna
Journal:  Int J Speech Lang Pathol       Date:  2015-03-31       Impact factor: 2.484

Review 7.  Temporal variability in the deglutition literature.

Authors:  Sonja M Molfenter; Catriona M Steele
Journal:  Dysphagia       Date:  2012-02-26       Impact factor: 3.438

Review 8.  Power failure: why small sample size undermines the reliability of neuroscience.

Authors:  Katherine S Button; John P A Ioannidis; Claire Mokrysz; Brian A Nosek; Jonathan Flint; Emma S J Robinson; Marcus R Munafò
Journal:  Nat Rev Neurosci       Date:  2013-04-10       Impact factor: 34.870

Review 9.  Current sample size conventions: flaws, harms, and alternatives.

Authors:  Peter Bacchetti
Journal:  BMC Med       Date:  2010-03-22       Impact factor: 8.775

10.  Within-Bolus Variability of the Penetration-Aspiration Scale Across Two Subsequent Swallows in Patients with Head and Neck Cancer.

Authors:  Johanna Hedström; Lisa Tuomi; Mats Andersson; Hans Dotevall; Hanna Osbeck; Caterina Finizia
Journal:  Dysphagia       Date:  2017-06-07       Impact factor: 3.438

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.