PubMed · 14756865
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
Xavier Cabarrocas. 2004. Evaluating triptan usage.. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1526-4610.2004.t01-2-04041.x
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
Power analysis constitutes an important component of modern clinical trials and research studies. Although a variety of methods and software packages are available, almost all of them are focused on regression models, with little attention paid to correlation analysis. However, the latter is arguably a simpler and more appropriate approach for modelling concurrent events, especially in psychosocial research. In this paper, we discuss power and sample size estimation for correlation analysis arising from clustered study designs. Our approach is based on the asymptotic distribution of correlated Pearson-type estimates. Although this asymptotic distribution is easy to use in data analysis, the presence of a large number of parameters creates a major problem for power analysis due to the lack of real data to estimate them. By introducing a surrogacy-type assumption, we show that all nuisance parameters can be eliminated, making it possible to perform power analysis based only on the parameters of interest. Simulation results suggest that power and sample size estimates obtained under the proposed approach are robust to this assumption.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
For the problem of testing for a monotonic trend between an ordinal exposure and a binary response while controlling for categorical cofactors, we derived stratified and adjusted versions of two single contrast tests. Using simulations, we compared their statistical properties to those of the commonly used stratified Mantel-extension trend (MET) test. All tests had high power in case of monotonic relationships between exposure and response. In case of non-monotonic relationships, the stratified and adjusted contrast tests were markedly less powerful than the stratified MET-test particularly for five exposure levels, a favourable feature when the aim is to test for the existence of a monotonic dose-response relationship. These results are illustrated by an example.