Your English writing platform
Discover LudwigSuggestions(1)
Exact(3)
The most common strategy involves attempting to define the minimum meaningful difference.
A difference of 0.1 m/s has been proposed as the minimum "meaningful" difference [ 10], and the average improvement found was clearly larger.
Using an expected standard deviation of 10 percentage points, 100 subjects would provide 85% power to detect a difference of 3 points (effect size 0.3) on knowledge tests, which we felt to be a minimum meaningful difference.
Similar(57)
A minimum sample size of five rats per group is based on the ability to detect a minimal meaningful difference in histological scoring of the knee joint to provide an α = 0.05 and a power of 80%.
Furthermore, the 'minimum meaningful difference' would also need to be defined.
For example, do we want to be 70% or 80% sure that a confirmatory trial will show a minimum clinically meaningful difference?
This can be framed into a Go/No-Go hurdle such as; are we at least 75% sure of having a mean difference larger than the minimum clinically meaningful difference.
This question may also be stated in terms of a 'Go' criteria, for example: Are we at least 75% sure of having a mean difference in SF-36 GH dimension that is greater than the minimum clinically meaningful difference of five points at 3 months post randomisation.
Table 3 displays the posterior mean, posterior standard deviation, and the probability that the mean difference in SF-36 GH dimension score is greater than the minimum clinically meaningful difference of 5 points for our examples of a non-informative, pessimistic and optimistic prior distribution.
Based on a previous study among pregnant women in Enugu, Nigeria, which found a standard deviation of the mean venous blood PCV of 1.41% among HIV-seronegative controls [ 14], the sample size of 200 used for this study was adequate to identify a minimum meaningful mean PCV difference of 0.49% at 95% confidence level and 90% power.
Several groups studied the volumetric minimum meaningful change according to different approaches.
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