However, as with many other sampling-based methods, inadequate sample size can badly pollute the result accuracies.
The lack of a significant difference between the angiotensin receptor blocker and ACE inhibitor group might be because of inadequate sample size.
However, lack of prospective specification, inadequate sample size, inability to maintain power, and the cumulative effect of sampling error can complicate their interpretation.
Inadequate sample size may lead to inaccurate results.
These findings must be viewed with caution, however, because power analysis showed low effect sizes and an inadequate sample size.
There are numerous explanations for the failure of these trials, including ineffective interventions, inadequate sample size, treatment side effects, and insensitive or inappropriate outcome measures.
These issues concern, essentially, the role of qualitative variables, the neglect of non-linear relationships, inadequate sample size, and the difficulties in accounting for the behaviour of intrinsically complex systems, like those studied by psychology.
Frequently observed shortcomings were the lack of consideration of confounding factors; uncertainties regarding exposure characterization; inadequate sample size; the lack of a clear dose response; and the representativeness/generalizability of the results.
Other possibilities include the relatively long time windows used in many neuroprotective trials, adverse effects of some drugs such as hypotension and sedation, inadequate sample size, other trial design issues, and the relative lack of neuroreceptors in white matter.
However, the safety and effectiveness of these approaches are unclear due to limitations in trial design, an inadequate sample size, and the problems inherent in evaluating the effects of initial feeding regimen on necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC) and neurodevelopmental outcome.
We suspect inadequate sample size for these specific cancers as the explanation for these observations.
