Exact(3)
It should be noted that larger outcome size in our study, as compared to Dutertre's study, resulted from our additional profiling of non-annotated gene regions that were not considered in Dutertre's study and that revealed several intronic regions which were differentially expressed between tumors with different metastatic potential.
We reanalysed the primary outcome (size of pleural effusion) and the two major secondary outcomes (need for surgery and time to hospital discharge).
However, we have shown that although being small or large may increase the risk of an adverse outcome, size alone is not sensitive or specific enough with current detection to be a useful clinical tool and poses the question of whether classification of size helps with the management at all.
Similar(57)
A clustered randomized design provided adequate power to identify moderate effects on primary outcomes (effect size > 0.35).
Considering mortality and morbidity outcomes, effect size for all-cause neonatal mortality was chosen for inclusion in the LiST based on its statistical significance and quality grade.
The sample size was based on a power calculation using maximum oxygen uptake (VO2max) as the primary outcome measure (effect size, 1.16; standard deviation [SD], 4.0 L/min).
Even in studies with positive outcomes, effect sizes have been small and the clinical significance of these remains to be established.
In case of dichotomous outcomes, effect sizes (Cohen's d) were determined by using the converting formula proposed by Borenstein et al. 28 Effect sizes for metric outcomes were calculated as proposed by Feingold.
The primary outcome variable (reported effect size) and the secondary outcome variables (baseline, study size and treatment group) were regressed against the publication year.
These studies demonstrated a high effect size for outcome measures (d = 1.2 - 2.4).
For a certain outcome, only one effect size per study was included.
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