Type II error and statistical power in reports of small animal clinical trials

Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association

Volumn 244, Issue 9, 2014, Pages 1075-1080

  Giuffrida, Michelle A ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ANIMAL; METHODOLOGY; PROCEDURES; PUBLISHING; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); SAMPLE SIZE; STANDARDS; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; STATISTICS; VETERINARY; VETERINARY MEDICINE;

ANIMALS; DATA INTERPRETATION, STATISTICAL; PUBLISHING; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS AS TOPIC; RESEARCH DESIGN; SAMPLE SIZE; STATISTICS AS TOPIC; VETERINARY MEDICINE;

EID: 84898869527     PISSN: 00031488     EISSN: 1943569X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2460/javma.244.9.1075     Document Type: Article

References (33)

1. Piantadosi S. Clinical trials: a methodologic perspective. 2nd ed. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, 2005.
2. Meinert CL. Clinical trials handbook: design and conduct. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, 2013.
3. Chin R, Lee BY. Principles and practice of clinical trial medicine. London: Elsevier, 2008.
4. Goodman SN, Berlin JA. The use of predicted confidence intervals when planning experiments and the misuse of power when interpreting results. Ann Intern Med 1994;121:200-206.
5. Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D. CONSORT 2010 statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMJ 2010;340:c332.
6. Lund EM, James KM, Neaton JD. Veterinary randomized clinical trial reporting: a review of the small animal literature. J Vet Intern Med 1998;12:57-60.
7. Brown DC. Control of selection bias in parallel-group controlled clinical trials in dogs and cats: 97 trials (2000-2005). J Am Vet Med Assoc 2006;229:990-993.
8. Sargeant JM, Thompson A, Valcour J, et al. Quality of reporting of clinical trials of dogs and cats and associations with treatment effects. J Vet Intern Med 2010;24:44-50.
9. Freiman JA, Chalmers TC, Smith H, et al. The importance of beta, the type II error and sample size in the design and interpretation of the randomized control trial: survey of 71 "negative" trials. N Engl J Med 1978;299:690-694.
10. Moher D, Dulberg CS, Wells GA. Statistical power, sample size, and their reporting in randomized controlled trials. JAMA 1994;272:122-124.
11. Chung KC, Kalliainen LK, Spilson SV, et al. The prevalence of negative studies with inadequate statistical power: an analysis of the plastic surgery literature. Plast Reconstr Surg 2002;109:1-6.
12. Bailey CS, Fischer CG, Dvorak MF. Type II error in the surgical spine literature. Spine 2004;29:1146-1149.
13. Charles P, Giraudeau B, Dechartres A, et al. Reporting of sample size calculation in randomized controlled trials: review. BMJ 2009;338:b1732.
14. Altman DG, Bland JM. Standard deviations and standard errors. BMJ 2005;331:903.
15. Dupont WD, Plummer WD. Power and sample size calculations: a review and computer program. Control Clin Trials 1990;11:116-128.
16. Yusuf S, Collins R, Peto R. Why do we need some large, simple randomised trials? Stat Med 1984;3:409-422.
17. Chalmers TC, Levin H, Sacks HS, et al. Meta-analysis of clinical trials as a scientific discipline, 1: control of bias and comparison with large co-operative trials. Stat Med 1987;6:315-328.
18. Brown DC. Sources and handling of losses to follow-up in parallel- group randomized controlled clinical trials in dogs and cats: 63 trials (2000-2005). Am J Vet Res 2007;68:694-698.
19. Giuffrida MA, Agnello KA, Brown DC. Blinding terminology used in reports of randomized controlled trials involving dogs and cats. J Am Vet Med Assoc 2012;241:1221-1226.
20. Ayeni O, Dickson L, Ignacy TA, et al. A systematic review of power and sample size reporting in randomized controlled trials within plastic surgery. Plast Reconstr Surg 2012;130:78e-86e.
21. Halpern SD, Karlawish JHT, Berlin JA. The continuing unethical conduct of underpowered clinical trials. JAMA 2002;288:358-362.
22. Schulz KF, Grimes DA. Sample size calculations in randomised trials: mandatory and mystical. Lancet 2005;365:1348-1353.
23. Altman DG, Moher D, Schulz KF. Reporting power calculations is important (lett). BMJ 2002;325:491.
24. Tukey JW. Some thoughts on clinical trials, especially problems of multiplicity. Science 1977;198:679-684.
25. Singh JA, Murphy S, Bhandari M. Trial sample size, but not trial quality, is associated with positive study outcome. J Clin Epidemiol 2010;63:154-162.
26. Kjaergard LL, Nikolova D, Gluud C. Randomized clinical trials in Hepatology: predictors of quality. Hepatology 1999;30:1134-1138.
27. Plint AC, Moher D, Morrison A, et al. Does the CONSORT checklist improve the quality of reports of randomized controlled trials? A systematic review. Med J Aust 2006;185:263-267.
28. Bailar JC, Mosteller F. Guidelines for statistical reporting in articles for medical journals: amplifications and explanations. Ann Intern Med 1988;108:266-273.
29. Gardner MJ, Altman DG. Confidence intervals rather than P values: estimation rather than hypothesis testing. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed) 1986;292:746-750.
30. Dyba T, Kampenes VB, Sjoberg DIK. A systematic review of statistical power in software engineering experiments. Inf Softw Technol 2006;48:745-755.
31. Belia S, Fidler F, Williams J, et al. Researchers misunderstand confidence intervals and standard error bars. Psychol Methods 2005;10:389-396.
32. Karlsson J, Engebretsen L, Dainty K. Considerations on sample size and power calculations in randomized controlled trials. Arthroscopy 2003;19:997-999.
33. Ioannidis JPA, Hozo I, Djulbegovich B. Optimal type I and type II error pairs when the available sample size is fixed. J Clin Epidemiol 2013;66:903-910.