ArticleEcotoxicology and environmental safety2020
Adequacy of sample size for estimating a value from field observational data.
Article in Ecotoxicology and environmental safety, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Infertility-Related Stress, and Dyadic Coping as Predictors of Quality of Life: Gender Differences Among Couples with Infertility Issues.International journal of women's health · 2024Article
- Development of national stressor-specific genus sensitivity values.The Science of the total environment · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
In 2011, the U.S. EPA Office of Research and Development released a field-based method for deriving aquatic life benchmarks for conductivity. Since its release, it has been verified, validated, and corroborated by the authors, reviewers, and independent researchers. However, the method and published results have been recently challenged as being artifacts of small sample sizes, prompting this re-evaluation. This paper supplements prior causal analyses by weighing evidence that specifically addresses the hypothesis that the benchmark is a statistical artifact. Four types of evidence are presented: (1) Permutation analyses show that the data sets are able to reliably estimate the extirpation of 5% of genera. (2) Analyses show that 25 occurrences of a genus are sufficient to estimate extirpation. (3) Coherent ecological explanations show that the claimed influence of sample size is actually a result of community ecology. (4) A review of relevant independent studies supports the benchmark. The permutation test is a useful test of the adequacy of field data sets. Furthermore, this weight-of-evidence approach and the individual types of evidence can be a model for analysis of other field-based benchmark values.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.