ArticleJournal of evaluation in clinical practice2026
Does Increasing Sample Size Inevitably Lead to Statistical Significance? Insights From a Monte Carlo Simulation Study for Medical Research Design.
Article in Journal of evaluation in clinical practice, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Does Increasing Sample Size Inevitably Lead to Statistical Significance? Insights From a Monte Carlo Simulation Study for Medical Research Design.Journal of evaluation in clinical practice · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThis study addresses the common misconception that larger sample sizes inevitably produce smaller P-values and higher statistical power, using Monte Carlo simulations to examine the effect of sample size under scenarios with and without a true effect.
methodsMonte Carlo simulations were performed with 1000 iterations for each of 11 sample sizes per group (n = 5-800). Two scenarios were simulated: (1) both groups drawn from the same normal distribution (μ = 4.5, σ = 0.5; null hypothesis H
resultsWhen a true effect existed, increasing sample size led to a marked rise in statistical power, with the proportion of significant results increasing from 5.4% to 98.1%. In contrast, when no true effect existed, p-values remained uniformly distributed across all sample sizes, and the frequency of p < 0.05 consistently approximated the nominal 5% significance level. Importantly, increasing sample size under the null hypothesis did not increase the likelihood of detecting significance.
conclusionLarger sample sizes do not create statistical significance in the absence of a true effect; they only enhance the detection of effects that genuinely exist. Study design and statistical interpretation should therefore be guided by effect size and clinical relevance rather than by sample size alone.
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.