Median sample size was modest (27 subjects), with only 38% of studies reflecting planned research and 22% including an internal control or comparison group.
In this event, we use the median sample size to create one single sample size for each study.
The studies that Weitlauf and her colleagues did find were mostly teeny, many of them with fewer than 20 participants in a group (the median sample size was 34).
Amazingly, if the margin of the declared winner is wide enough, as a survey of 255 state presidential elections between 1992 and 2008 found, the declared winner could be verified or disproven with a median sample size of just 307 hand-counted ballots across an entire state.
The median sample size of the included studies was 110.5 (interquartile range 75.8 to 184).
However, the vast majority of pharmacogenetic studies were far smaller (median sample size 93) and the distribution highly skewed (IQR 40 222).
The median sample size was 31 sequences (range = 8 1368) per country, and each country contained a median number of 8 distinct haplotypes (range = 1 68) (Table 2).
Although pharmacodynamic studies (median sample size 102, IQR 51 273) tended to be larger than pharmacokinetic studies (median sample size 70, IQR 25-136, p = 7.61×10−15) in neither case was the size of studies comparable to recent candidate gene or genome wide disease association studies [26].
The median sample size was 81.
The median sample size was 37 (range 6 to 182).
The median sample size was 13 (range 5 52).
