Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29197347›Full record

ArticleBMC medical research methodology2017

Sample size calculations based on a difference in medians for positively skewed outcomes in health care studies.

Aidan G O'Keeffe, Gareth Ambler, Julie A Barber

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06898801 (Neonatal INtubation After "Just-in-time" Audiovisual Training), which is not on this map. Cited by 38 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
38citing 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.

NCT06898801 nanot yet recruitingnot on this mapstarted 2025, after this paper: background citation

Neonatal INtubation After "Just-in-time" Audiovisual Training: a Randomised Controlled Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity College DublinRan2025 to 2027Enrolled140ConditionsRespiratory Distress Syndrome, Newborn, Endotracheal Intubation, Neonatal Intubation Performance, PrematurityArmsJust-in-time video training
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

38 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Genetic Variability inInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2023
    Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

3 authors.

Aidan G O'KeeffeDepartment of Statistical Science, University College London, Gower St., London, WC1E 6BT, UK. a.o'keeffe@ucl.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0776-0868
Gareth AmblerDepartment of Statistical Science, University College London, Gower St., London, WC1E 6BT, UK.
Julie A BarberDepartment of Statistical Science, University College London, Gower St., London, WC1E 6BT, UK.

Funding

Wellcome TrustWellcome Trust WT106882
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn healthcare research, outcomes with skewed probability distributions are common. Sample size calculations for such outcomes are typically based on estimates on a transformed scale (e.g. log) which may sometimes be difficult to obtain. In contrast, estimates of median and variance on the untransformed scale are generally easier to pre-specify. The aim of this paper is to describe how to calculate a sample size for a two group comparison of interest based on median and untransformed variance estimates for log-normal outcome data.

methodsA log-normal distribution for outcome data is assumed and a sample size calculation approach for a two-sample t-test that compares log-transformed outcome data is demonstrated where the change of interest is specified as difference in median values on the untransformed scale. A simulation study is used to compare the method with a non-parametric alternative (Mann-Whitney U test) in a variety of scenarios and the method is applied to a real example in neurosurgery.

resultsThe method attained a nominal power value in simulation studies and was favourable in comparison to a Mann-Whitney U test and a two-sample t-test of untransformed outcomes. In addition, the method can be adjusted and used in some situations where the outcome distribution is not strictly log-normal.

conclusionsWe recommend the use of this sample size calculation approach for outcome data that are expected to be positively skewed and where a two group comparison on a log-transformed scale is planned. An advantage of this method over usual calculations based on estimates on the log-transformed scale is that it allows clinical efficacy to be specified as a difference in medians and requires a variance estimate on the untransformed scale. Such estimates are often easier to obtain and more interpretable than those for log-transformed outcomes.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsClinical Studies as TopicData Interpretation, StatisticalHumansSample SizeStatistical DistributionsTreatment OutcomeHypothesis testLog-transformationMedianSample sizeSkewness

Identifiers

PMID29197347
PMCPMC5712177

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

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.