ArticleStatistics in medicine2022
How large should the next study be? Predictive power and sample size requirements for replication studies.
Article in Statistics in medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- Maternal sensitivity supports infant sleep: evidence from two longitudinal prospective cohorts on maternal childhood maltreatment, maternal sensitivity, and infant sleep.European child & adolescent psychiatry · 2026Article
- Transfer learning with multiomics integration and deep neural networks reveals drug resistance mechanisms in cancer.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Estimating the Replicability of Sports and Exercise Science Research.Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2025Article
- Assessing the replicability of RCTs in RWE emulations.BMC medical research methodology · 2025Article
- A large-scale in silico replication of ecological and evolutionary studies.Nature ecology & evolution · 2024Article
- Intuitive moral bias favors the religiously faithful.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- The importance of accounting method and sampling depth to estimate changes in soil carbon stocks.Carbon balance and management · 2024Article
- Extraordinary Claims in the Literature on High-Intensity Interval Training (HIIT): I. Bonafide Scientific Revolution or a Looming Crisis of Replication and Credibility?Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2023Review
- Language Experience Modulates the Visual N200 Response for Disyllabic Chinese Words: An Event-Related Potential Study.Brain sciences · 2023Article
- Ten simple rules for designing and conducting undergraduate replication projects.PLoS computational biology · 2023Article
- Proposal of a Selection Protocol for Replication of Studies in Sports and Exercise Science.Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2023Article
- How large should the next study be? Predictive power and sample size requirements for replication studies.Statistics in medicine · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We use information derived from over 40K trials in the Cochrane Collaboration database of systematic reviews (CDSR) to compute the replication probability, or predictive power of an experiment given its observed (two-sided)
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.