Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27578357›Full record

ArticleBMC medical research methodology2016

A systematic approach to designing statistically powerful heteroscedastic 2 × 2 factorial studies while minimizing financial costs.

Show-Li Jan, Gwowen Shieh

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Show-Li JanDepartment of Applied Mathematics, Chung Yuan Christian University, Taoyuan, 32023, Taiwan.
Gwowen ShiehDepartment of Management Science, National Chiao Tung University, Hsinchu, 30010, Taiwan. gwshieh@mail.nctu.edu.tw.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe 2 × 2 factorial design is widely used for assessing the existence of interaction and the extent of generalizability of two factors where each factor had only two levels. Accordingly, research problems associated with the main effects and interaction effects can be analyzed with the selected linear contrasts.

methodsTo correct for the potential heterogeneity of variance structure, the Welch-Satterthwaite test is commonly used as an alternative to the t test for detecting the substantive significance of a linear combination of mean effects. This study concerns the optimal allocation of group sizes for the Welch-Satterthwaite test in order to minimize the total cost while maintaining adequate power. The existing method suggests that the optimal ratio of sample sizes is proportional to the ratio of the population standard deviations divided by the square root of the ratio of the unit sampling costs. Instead, a systematic approach using optimization technique and screening search is presented to find the optimal solution.

resultsNumerical assessments revealed that the current allocation scheme generally does not give the optimal solution. Alternatively, the suggested approaches to power and sample size calculations give accurate and superior results under various treatment and cost configurations.

conclusionsThe proposed approach improves upon the current method in both its methodological soundness and overall performance. Supplementary algorithms are also developed to aid the usefulness and implementation of the recommended technique in planning 2 × 2 factorial designs.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsFactor Analysis, StatisticalModels, StatisticalResearch DesignBiomedical ResearchCosts and Cost AnalysisHumansSample SizeBudgetFactorial designHeteroscedasticityInteractionPowerSample size

Identifiers

PMID27578357
PMCPMC5006374

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.