Exact(1)
Briefly, sample size calculation assumed a prevalence of trauma-related psychological problems of 20% [ 4]; using a precision of 5% (confidence interval 95%) and a design effect of 2, the minimum sample size was estimated at 492.
Similar(57)
Briefly, appropriate sample size was computed taking into consideration the projected number of households in the selected communities and representations of each community.
Briefly, a sample size of 800 participants with a working telephone was calculated based on 80% power to detect a difference of at least 3% use of antibiotics giving an error of 0.05.
Put briefly, a sample size of 100 patients (α =.05, power = 80%) is required to detect differences in change of symptom distress between the intervention group and the control group.
Briefly, for sample size calculation, the following parameters were assumed: excess weight prevalence of 22.1% for school children aged 7 10 years [ 16] and 12.6% for those aged 11 14 years [ 17]; acceptable error of 3 percentage points; two-tailed test; confidence level of 95%; design effect of 1.5; and an addition of 10% for losses.
Although the idea of using alpha levels greater than threshold values, such as 5 or 10%, was mentioned briefly, the impact on sample size was not discussed (A'Hern, 2001).
It briefly describes the statistical concepts behind sample size recalculation and interim analyses for efficacy and futility, with a brief discussion on when to stop a trial.
The need for sample size calculations is briefly reviewed: many of the arguments against small trials are already well known, and we only cursorily repeat them in passing.
Nevertheless, sample size is only briefly mentioned in most guidelines published in order to help researchers design studies aimed at assessing PRO psychometric properties, or evaluating the methodological quality of those studies [ 1, 9- 11].
Briefly, both studies were of relatively small sample size.
This method is based on the power of the Wald test of group effect γ for a given sample size and it is briefly described.
Write better and faster with AI suggestions while staying true to your unique style.
Since I tried Ludwig back in 2017, I have been constantly using it in both editing and translation. Ever since, I suggest it to my translators at ProSciEditing.

Justyna Jupowicz-Kozak
CEO of Professional Science Editing for Scientists @ prosciediting.com