PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 7580713

Estimating sample sizes for binary, ordered categorical, and continuous outcomes in two group comparisons.

M J Campbell·S A Julious·D G Altman
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Sample size calculations are now mandatory for many research protocols, but the ones useful in common situations are not all easily accessible. This paper outlines the ways of calculating sample sizes in two group studies for binary, ordered categorical, and continuous outcomes. Formulas and worked examples are given. Maximum power is usually achieved by having equal numbers in the two groups. However, this is not always possible and calculations for unequal group sizes are given.

Explore related subjects

Data Interpretation, StatisticalHumansSample SizeJournal ArticleResearch Support, Non-U.S. Gov'tReview

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

M J Campbell, S A Julious, D G Altman. 1995-10-28. Estimating sample sizes for binary, ordered categorical, and continuous outcomes in two group comparisons.. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.311.7013.1145

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed1996

Fitting multi-parameter distributions to sister chromatid exchange data.

Bender et al. (1992) presented the number of sister chromatid exchanges (SCE) in 50 peripheral blood lymphocytes from each of 393 normal human subjects. In that study of 19650 cells, the number of SCE per cell ranged from 0 to 32. We examine the resulting frequency distributions, and show how they may be fitted, by the method of moments, to discrete Pearson-type and Johnson translation system distributions.

Data Interpretation, Statistical↗
PubMed1996

Forty years of randomised trials in the New Zealand Medical Journal.

AIM: To identify all randomised trials published in the New Zealand Medical Journal, to document the basic characteristics of these trials and to count the number that were detectable on medline. METHODS: All issues of the New Zealand Medical Journal between 1943 and 1995 were systematically hand-searched. All trials identified were characterised and compared against the trials identified using an optimal medline search strategy. RESULTS: The handsearch identified 152 randomised controlled trials, the first published in 1955. Half the trials recruited less than 34 participants and more than 90% were of pharmaceutical interventions. Only 18% of studies reported on the method of randomisation and 13% provided evidence that final analyses were conducted on an intention to treat basis. Fifty one percent of trials employed a placebo control group and 28% involved a crossover design. Since 1966, when Medline became available, 143 trials were published of which 89 (62%) were identified by the Medline search. CONCLUSIONS: Two of the major difficulties that face those preparing systematic reviews were illustrated by this survey. First, important information on design and analysis is often missing from reports of trials. Second, a large proportion of published randomised trials are not identifiable on Medline. Standard formats for reporting the results of trials and inclusion of trials identified by hand-searching on the Cochrane Collaboration's International Register of Randomised Controlled Trials of Health Care will facilitate the future production of reliable systematic reviews.

Data Interpretation, Statistical↗