"poor sample size" is correct and usable in written English.
You can use it when referring to the size of a sample used in a research study, particularly when observing that the sample size is too small to provide meaningful results. For example, "The results of the survey were inconclusive, likely due to the poor sample size of only 100 participants."
10 In conclusion, the results must cautiously consider the poor sample size, the short follow-up, and its features of being a retrospective and observational study.
The results must consider the poor sample size, the short follow-up, and its features of being a retrospective and observational study.
Yet, the very poor sample size of medusozoan taxa in previous studies raises some question about the validity of phylogenetic results based on them.
Research has failed to fully identify bone density and structural differences between SF personnel and controls due to inadequate adjustment for confounding factors and poor sample size.
The inconsistencies in the epidemiology data are often attributed to poor quality and inadequate sample size.
A growing number of meta-analyses vary in their conclusions on the effectiveness of probiotics against IBS, in part because of inadequate sample size, poor study design and use of various probiotic strains in the reviewed studies.
Some studies used otherwise appropriate methodologies, but were rated as "poor" due to inadequate sample sizes for analyses.
The lack of replication in other complex diseases may reflect a number of flaws in their GWAS design, including inadequate sample sizes, population stratification, poor quality control of genotyping and substandard matching of cases and controls [ 7].
It also included the self-rated health and self-rated mental health questions, both measured on a 5-point Likert scale (very good, good, fair, poor, very poor); due to sample size considerations, both variables were dichotomized in the analysis into very good, good, and fair versus poor and very poor.
But the weakness of previous clinical studies, such as poor methodologically, small sample size, short follow-up, didn't mention whether get Institutional Review Board IRBB) approval before study, also not mentioned drop-out rate and safety issue, all these make people unconvinced of the previous findings [20 22].
The results of most soy studies in this population have had limitations because of poor design, small sample size, or short duration.
