PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 7973204

Sample size for repeated measures studies with binary responses.

S R Lipsitz·G M Fitzmaurice
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

We consider the sample size required for repeated measures studies when the response variable is binary. We propose the use of weighted least squares (WLS) for calculating the minimum sample size required to detect some minimum clinically important treatment effect. We provide tabulated values of the estimated sample sizes for a simple example and we discuss some practical considerations in determination of sample size with repeated binary responses.

Explore related subjects

BiasClinical Trials as TopicCluster AnalysisHumansLeast-Squares AnalysisModels, StatisticalSample SizeJournal ArticleResearch Support, U.S. Gov't, P.H.S.

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

S R Lipsitz, G M Fitzmaurice. 1994-06-30. Sample size for repeated measures studies with binary responses.. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.4780131205

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2026

Assessment of blinding in pharmacotherapy and noninvasive neuromodulation randomized controlled trials for neuropathic pain in adults.

In randomized controlled trials (RCTs), study participants and research personnel are often blinded to minimize biases related to knowing treatment allocation. To determine if blinding was effective, participants may be asked which treatment they believe they received ("treatment guess"). This descriptive review characterized blinding assessment (BA) reporting in pharmacotherapy and neuromodulation neuropathic pain RCTs. Of 288 papers, 36 (12.5%) reported a BA. One paper reported the results of 2 studies, so in total 37 studies with a BA were assessed. Of these, 19 were crossover, 17 parallel, and 1 partial crossover in design. All 37 studies assessed participant blinding, and 10 also assessed investigator blinding. Approximately 27% included an "unsure" answer option for treatment guess, and 38% asked the reason for the guess. There were no clear patterns in BA reporting across time nor based on treatment type. Seventeen trials provided sufficient data to calculate Bang Blinding Index (BI) to determine blinding success. Participants remained blinded (BI = 0 &#xb1; 0.2) in 10/17 placebo and 10/17 treatment arms, 6 placebo and 5 treatment arms had a BI > 0.2 suggesting possible unblinding, whereas 1 placebo and 2 treatment arms had a BI < -0.2 suggesting misinformed guessing. Overall, we found that BAs are done in a minority of published neuropathic pain trials and with variable methodology. Given the importance of minimizing risk of bias because of treatment unblinding, future studies should consider including BAs, and further consensus building is necessary to determine if and how BAs should be conducted and interpreted in analgesic clinical trials.

Bias↗