PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 8134732

Sample size calculations for ordered categorical data.

J Whitehead
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Many clinical trials yield data on an ordered categorical scale such as very good, good, moderate, poor. Under the assumption of proportional odds, such data can be analysed using techniques of logistic regression. In simple comparisons of two treatments this approach becomes equivalent to the Mann-Whitney test. In this paper sample size formulae consistent with an eventual logistic regression analysis are derived. The influence on efficiency of the number and breadth of categories will be examined. Effects of misclassification and of stratification are discussed, and examples of the calculations are given.

Explore related subjects

BiasClinical Trials as TopicData Interpretation, StatisticalHumansLogistic ModelsProbabilityPrognosisSampling StudiesTreatment FailureTreatment OutcomeJournal Article

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

J Whitehead. 1993-12-30. Sample size calculations for ordered categorical data.. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.4780122404

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↗