ArticleBMC medical research methodology2026
Robust power and sample size calculations in quasi-likelihood models: methods and practice.
Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAccurate power and sample size calculations are essential in study planning, yet they are often difficult to carry out for quasi-likelihood (QL) models. Traditional power and sample size (PSS) approaches often rely on restrictive distributional assumptions, limiting their applicability when responses have non-standard distributions, variance functions are misspecified, or when covariates exhibit complex dependence structures.
methodsWe examine whether two effect size measures-2 Standard Deviations in the Linear Predictor (2SLiP) and Pseudo-Partial [Formula: see text] (P2R2)-originally developed for Wald tests involving generalized linear models, are effective at power and sample size calculations in the QL framework. Through extensive simulations across diverse outcome types, link functions, and variance structures, we assess their performance under Wald tests and explore whether they remain useful for score tests. To illustrate practical utility, we apply these effect size measures to survey data on frontline health care workers to quantify the association between perceived personal protective equipment (PPE) adequacy and burnout risk during the COVID-19 pandemic, adjusting for covariates.
resultsWe show that the two generalized linear model (GLM)-based effect sizes are fundamentally moment-based objects, and therefore extend directly to QL models. Across all simulation settings, both measures remained accurate, with sample size and power estimates within 3% and 2% of the target, respectively. In the case study, the estimated effect sizes for perceived PPE adequacy (2SLiP = 0.096 and P2R2 = 0.020) correspond to small but meaningful associations with burnout risk after adjustment for demographic and occupational covariates; both yielded accurate recommendations for sample size.
conclusionsBoth 2SLiP and P2R2 offer robust alternatives for power and sample size calculation in QL settings. By requiring minimal distributional assumptions, these measures enhance the flexibility and reliability of power and sample size calculations for realistic study designs commonly encountered in medical and public health research.
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.