|
Previous article 
Next article |
|
|
REVIEW ARTICLE
Year : 2016 | Volume
: 10
| Issue : 3 | Page : 328-331
Basic concepts for sample size calculation: Critical step for any clinical trials!
KK Gupta1, JP Attri2, A Singh1, H Kaur1, G Kaur1
1 Department of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care, GGS Medical College and Hospital, Faridkot, Punjab, India
2 Department of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care, Government Medical College, Amritsar, Punjab, India
Correspondence Address:
K K Gupta
House No. 204, Medical Campus, Faridkot - 151 203, Punjab
India
 Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None  | Check |
DOI: 10.4103/1658-354X.174918
| Date of Web Publication | 2-Jun-2016 |
|
|
Quality of clinical trials has improved steadily over last two decades, but certain areas in trial methodology still require special attention like in sample size calculation. The sample size is one of the basic steps in planning any clinical trial and any negligence in its calculation may lead to rejection of true findings and false results may get approval. Although statisticians play a major role in sample size estimation basic knowledge regarding sample size calculation is very sparse among most of the anesthesiologists related to research including under trainee doctors. In this review, we will discuss how important sample size calculation is for research studies and the effects of underestimation or overestimation of sample size on project's results. We have highlighted the basic concepts regarding various parameters needed to calculate the sample size along with examples.
Keywords: Clinical trial; power of study; sample size
How to cite this article:
Gupta K K, Attri J P, Singh A, Kaur H, Kaur G. Basic concepts for sample size calculation: Critical step for any clinical trials!. Saudi J Anaesth 2016;10:328-31 |
How to cite this URL:
Gupta K K, Attri J P, Singh A, Kaur H, Kaur G. Basic concepts for sample size calculation: Critical step for any clinical trials!. Saudi J Anaesth [serial online] 2016 [cited 2022 Oct 5];10:328-31. Available from: https://www.saudija.org/text.asp?2016/10/3/328/174918 |
| Introduction | |  |
Proper study design that is an integral component of any randomized clinical trial (i.e., the highest level of evidence available for evaluating new therapies), appears infrequently in the anesthesia literature. [1],[2],[3] Lack of sample size calculations in prospective studies and power analysis in studies with negative results have sufficiently supported this finding. [4],[5] Two possible reasons for its absence in anesthesia research are followings:
- Rare training on subjects like sample size calculation and power analysis among resident doctors.
- Complex appearance of mathematical expression which are used for this.
To plan a research project and to understand the contents of a research paper, we need to be familiar with the fundamental concepts of medical statistics. While designing a study, we need to interact with a statistician. Understanding the basic concepts will help the anesthesiologist to interact with him in a more meaningful way. One of the pivotal aspects of planning a clinical study is the calculation of the sample size. Hence in this article, we will discuss the importance of sample size estimation for a clinical trial and different parameters that impact sample size along with basic rules for these parameters.
As we know, it is naturally neither practical nor feasible to study the whole population in any study. Hence, the sample is a set of participants (lesser in number) which adequately represents the population from which it is drawn so that true inferences about the population can be made from the results obtained. The sample size is, simply put, the number of patients or experimental units in a sample. Every individual in the chosen population should have an equal chance to be included in the sample.
| Why Sample Size Calculations? | | |
The sample size is one of the first practical steps and statistical principal in designing a clinical trial to answer the research question. [6] With smaller sample size in a study, it may not be able to detect the precise difference between study groups, making the study unethical. Moreover, the results of the study cannot be generalized to the population, as this sample will be inadequate to represent the target population. On the other hand, by taking larger sample size in the study, we put more population to the risk of the intervention and also making the study unethical. It also results in wastage of precious resources and the researchers' time.
Hence, sample size is an important factor in approval/rejection of clinical trial results irrespective of how clinically effective/ineffective, the intervention may be.
Components of sample size calculation
One of the most common questions any statistician gets asked is "How large a sample size do I need?" Researchers are often surprised to find out that the answer depends on a number of factors, and they have to give the statistician some information before they can get an answer! Thus calculating the sample size for a trial requires four basic components that are following. [7],[8]
P value (or alpha)
Everybody is familiar with the term of P value. This is also known as level of significance and in every clinical trial we set an acceptable limit for P value. For example, we assume P < 0.05 is significant, it means that we are accepting that probability of difference in studying target due to chance is 5% or there are 5% chances of detection in difference when actually there was no difference exist (false positive results). This type of error in clinical research is also known as Type I error or alpha. Type I error is inversely proportional to sample size.
Power
Sometimes we may commit another type of error where we may fail to detect the difference when actually there is the difference. This is known as Type II error that detects false negative results, exactly opposite to mentioned above where we find false positive results when actually there was no difference. To accept or reject null hypothesis by adequate power, acceptable limit for the false negative rate must be decided before conducting the study.
In another term, Type II error is the probability of failing to find the difference between two study groups when actually a difference exist and it is termed as beta (β). By convention, maximum acceptable value for β in bio-statistical literature is 0.20 or a 20% chance that null hypothesis is falsely accepted. The "power" of the study then is equal to (1-β) and for a β of 0.2, the power is 0.8, which is the minimum power required to accept the null hypothesis. Usually, most of clinical trial uses the power of 80% which means that we are accepting that one in five times (i.e., 20%) we will miss a real difference. The power of a study increases as the chances of committing a Type II error decrease.
The effect size
Effect size (ES) is the minimal difference that investigator wants to detect between study groups and is also termed as the minimal clinical relevant difference. We can estimate the ES by three techniques that is, pilot studies, previously reported data or educated guess based on clinical experiences.
To understand the concept of ES, here we take one example. Suppose that treatment with Drug A results in a reduction of mean blood pressure (MBP) by 10 mm of Hg and with Drug B results in a reduction of MBP by 20 mm of Hg. Then, absolute ES will be 10 mm of Hg in this case. ES can be expressed as the absolute or relative difference. As in above example, relative difference/reduction with drug intervention is 10/20 or 50%. In other word, for continuous outcome variables the ES will be numerical difference and for binary outcome e.g., effect of drug on development of stress response (yes/no), researcher should estimate a relevant difference between the event rates in both treatment groups and could choose, for instance, a difference of 10% between both the groups as ES. In statistics, the difference between the value of the variable in the control group and that in the test drug group is known as ES. Even a small change in the expected difference with treatment has a major effect on the estimated sample size, as the sample size is inversely proportional to the square of the difference. For larger ES, smaller sample size would be needed to prove the effect but for smaller ES, sample size should be large.
The variability
Finally for the sample size calculation, researcher needs to anticipate the population variance of a given outcome variable which is estimated by means of the standard deviation (SD). Investigators often use an estimate obtained from information in previous studies because the variance is usually an unknown quantity. For a homogenous population, we need smaller sample size as variance or SD will be less in this population. Suppose for studying the effect of diet program A on the weight, we include a population with weights ranging from 40 to 105 kg. Now, it is easy to understand that the SD in this group will be more and we would need a larger sample size to detect a difference between interventions, else the difference between the study groups would be concealed by the inherent difference between them because of the SD. If, on the other hand, we take a sample from a population with weights between 60 and 80 kg we would naturally get a more homogenous group, thus reducing the SD and, therefore, the sample size.
Other factors affecting the sample size calculation are dropout rate and underlying event rate in the population.
Dropout rate
Dropout rate means that estimate of a number of subjects those can leave out the study/clinical trial due to some reason. Normally the sample size calculation will give a number of study subjects required for achieving target statistical significance for a given hypothesis. However in clinical practice, we may need to enroll more subjects to compensate for these potential dropouts. [9]
If n is the sample size required as per formula and if d is the dropout rate then adjusted sample size N1 is obtained as N1 = n/(1-d).
Event rate in population
Prevalence rate or underlying event rate of the condition under study in population is very important while calculating sample size. It is usually estimated from previous literature. For example studying the association of smoking and brain tumor, the prevalence rate for a brain tumor in studying population should be known prior to the study. Sometimes, we have to readjust the sample size after starting the trial because of unexpectedly low event rate in the population.
Examples of sample size calculations
Example 1: Comparing two means
A placebo-controlled randomized trial proposes to assess the effectiveness of Drug A in preventing the stress response to laryngoscopy. A previous study showed that there is the average rise of 20 mm of Hg in systolic blood pressure during laryngoscopy (with SD of 15 mm of Hg). What should be the sample size to study the difference in mean systolic blood pressure between two groups with a significant P < 0.05 and power of study of 90%.
Level of significance = 5%, Power = 80%, Zα = Z is constant set by convention according to accepted α error and Z (1-β) = Z is constant set by convention according to power of study which is calculated from [Table 1]. | Table 1: Showing constant values for convention values of α and ß values
Click here to view |
Formula of calculating sample size is:
n = 2 (Zα + Z [1-β]) 2 × SD 2 /d 2
Zα = 1.96, Z (1-β) = 1.28, SD = 15, d (effect size) = 20
So n = 2 (1.96 + 1.28) 2 × 15 2 /20 2 = 11.82
Twelve individuals in each group should be recruited in the study.
Example 2: Comparing two proportions
A study is planned to check the effectiveness of dexmedtomidine in preventing postoperative shivering. From previous studies, it was found that incidence of postoperative shivering is 60%. Reduction in the incidence of shivering up to 20% will be considered significant for the effectiveness of the drug. What should be the sample size for the study with alpha value, that is, Type I error of 5% (0.05) and power of 95%.
The parameters for sample size calculation are:
P1 = 60%, P2 = 20%, Effect size (d) = 40%, Zα = 1.96, Z (1-β) = 1.64
Average of P1 and P2 will be p = P1 + P2/2 60 + 20/2 = 40
q = 1-p = 1-40 = 60%
Formula will be: n = 2 (Zα + Z [1-β]) 2 × p × q/d 2
n = 2 (1.96 + 1.64) 2 × 40 × 60/(40) 2 = 38.88
In this example, we need 40 persons to be included in the each group for the study.
Some basic rules for on sample size estimations are
- Power - It should be ≥80%. Sample size increases as power increases. Higher the power, lower the chance of missing a real effect. [10]
- Level of significance - It is typically taken as 5%. The sample size increases as level of significance decreases. [10]
- Clinically meaningful difference - To detect a smaller difference, one needs a sample of large sample size and vice a versa. [10]
- Post-hoc power calculations - After the study is conducted, one should not perform any "post-hoc" power calculations. The power should always be calculated prior to a study to determine the required sample size, since it is the prestudy probability that the study will detect a minimum effect regarded as clinically significant. Once the effect of the study is known, investigators should use the 95% confidence interval (CI) to express the amount of uncertainty around the effect estimate instead of power. [11],[12]
Reporting of sample size
According to the CONSORT statement, sample size calculations should be reported and justified in all published RCTs. Many studies only include statements like "we calculated that the sample size in each treatment group should be 150 at an alpha of 0.05 and a power of 0.80." However, such a statement is almost meaningless because it neglects the estimates for the effect of interest and the variability. The best way to express sample size from IDEAL clinical trial should be "A clinically significant effect of 10% or more over the 3 years would be of interest. Assuming 3-year survival rates in the control group and the intervention group of 64% and 74% respectively, with a two-sided significance of 0.05 and a power of 0.8, a total of 800-1000 patients will be required." [13]
| Conclusion | | |
The sample size is first and important step in planning a clinical trial and any negligence in its estimation may lead to rejection of an efficacious drug and an ineffective drug may get approval. Although techniques for sample size calculation are described in various statistical books, performing these calculations can be complicated and it is desirable to consult an experienced statistician in estimation of this vital study parameter. To have meaningful dialogue with the statistician every research worker should be familiar with the basic concepts of sample size calculations.
Financial support and sponsorship
Nil.
Conflicts of interest
There are no conflicts of interest.
| References | | |
| 1. | Pua HL, Lerman J, Crawford MW, Wright JG. An evaluation of the quality of clinical trials in anesthesia. Anesthesiology 2001;95:1068-73.  |
| 2. | Moodie PF, Craig DB. Experimental design and statistical analysis. Can Anaesth Soc J 1986;33:63-5. [ PUBMED] |
| 3. | Villeneuve E, Mathieu A, Goldsmith CH. Power and sample size calculations in clinical trials from anesthesia journals. Anesth Analg 1992;74:S337. |
| 4. | Mathieu A, Villeneuve E, Goldsmith CH. Critical appraisal of methodological reporting in the anesthesia literature. Anesth Analg 1992;74:S195. |
| 5. | Fisher DM. Statistics in anesthesia. In: Miller RD, editor. Anesthesia. 4 th ed. New York: Churchill Livingstone; 1994. p. 782-5. |
| 6. | Kirby A, Gebski V, Keech AC. Determining the sample size in a clinical trial. Med J Aust 2002;177:256-7. |
| 7. | Kadam P, Bhalerao S. Sample size calculation. Int J Ayurveda Res 2010;1:55-7. |
| 8. | Dhulkhed VK, Dhorigol MG, Mane R, Gogate V, Dhulkhed P. Basics statistical concepts for sample size estimation. Indian J Anaesth 2008;52:788-93.  |
| 9. | Sakpal TV. Sample size estimation in clinical trial. Perspect Clin Res 2010;1:67-9. [ PUBMED] |
| 10. | Brasher PM, Brant RF. Sample size calculations in randomized trials: common pitfalls. Can J Anaesth 2007;54:103-6. [ PUBMED] |
| 11. | 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;121:200-6. |
| 12. | Greenland S. On sample-size and power calculations for studies using confidence intervals. Am J Epidemiol 1988;128:231-7. |
| 13. | Cooper BA, Branley P, Bulfone L, Collins JF, Craig JC, Dempster J, et al. The initiating dialysis early and late (IDEAL) study: Study rationale and design. Perit Dial Int 2004;24:176-81. |
[Table 1]
| This article has been cited by | | 1 |
Part
II
: Statistics in practice: Study design and application of inferential statistics—Interventional research
|
|
| David R. Foster, Kevin M. Sowinski | | JACCP: JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF CLINICAL PHARMACY. 2022; 5(3): 377 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 2 |
Effects of partial sleep deprivation: speed management ability and associated crash risk |
|
| Kirti Mahajan, Nagendra R. Velaga | | Transportation Letters. 2022; : 1 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 3 |
The effect of treadmill walk with abdominal bracing versus usual care on functional limitation and fear-avoidance behaviours in the management of non-specific low back pain—a randomized control study |
|
| Olajide Olowe, Oluwaleke Sokunbi, Abdulrafiq Salisu, Anita Okafor | | Bulletin of Faculty of Physical Therapy. 2022; 27(1) | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 4 |
Dental follicle mesenchymal stem cells ameliorated glandular dysfunction in Sjögren’s syndrome murine model |
|
| Deniz Genç, Osman Bulut, Burcu Günaydin, Mizgin Göksu, Mert Düzgün, Yelda Dere, Serhat Sezgin, Akin Aladag, Aziz Bülbül, Gianpaolo Papaccio | | PLOS ONE. 2022; 17(5): e0266137 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 5 |
Immunoregulatory effects of dental mesenchymal stem cells on T and B lymphocyte responses in primary Sjögren's syndrome |
|
| Deniz Genç, Burcu Günaydin, Serhat Sezgin, Akin Aladag, Emine Figen Tarhan | | Immunotherapy. 2022; | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 6 |
Music Therapy as a Form of Nonpharmacologic Pain Modulation in Patients with Cancer: A Systematic Review of the Current Literature |
|
| Christopher Rennie, Dylan S. Irvine, Evan Huang, Jeffrey Huang | | Cancers. 2022; 14(18): 4416 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 7 |
Diagnostic Accuracy for Periprosthetic Joint Infection Does Not Improve by a Combined Use of Glucose and Leukocyte Esterase Strip Reading as Diagnostic Parameters |
|
| Marco Haertlé, Louisa Kolbeck, Christian Macke, Tilman Graulich, Ricarda Stauß, Mohamed Omar | | Journal of Clinical Medicine. 2022; 11(11): 2979 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 8 |
CMV and EBV Co-Infection in HIV-Infected Children: Infection Rates and Analysis of Differential Expression of Cytokines in HIV Mono- and HIV–CMV–EBV Co-Infected Groups |
|
| Fizza Nazim, Hammad Afzal Kayani, Apsara Ali Nathwani, Fatima Mir, Syed Hani Abidi | | Viruses. 2022; 14(8): 1823 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 9 |
The effect of red ginger bread consumption on the physiological parameters of healthy subjects |
|
| Titin Sulastri, Marleen Sunyoto, Marvel Reuben Suwitono, Jutti Levita | | Journal Of Advanced Pharmacy Education And Research. 2022; 12(3): 28 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 10 |
Designing and Conducting Randomized Controlled Trials: Basic Concepts for Educating Early Researchers in the Field of Clinical Nutrition |
|
| Charu Arora, Anita Malhotra, Piyush Ranjan, Akshay Kumar | | Cureus. 2021; | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 11 |
Dermatology and randomized control trials |
|
| Nayankumar Patel, Amrita Sil | | Indian Dermatology Online Journal. 2021; 12(3): 400 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 12 |
Impact of Reducing Sitting Time in Women with Fibromyalgia and Obesity: A Randomized Controlled Trial |
|
| Beatriz Rodríguez-Roca, Fernando Urcola-Pardo, Ana Anguas-Gracia, Ana Belén Subirón-Valera, Ángel Gasch-Gallén, Isabel Antón-Solanas, Ana M. Gascón-Catalán | | International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2021; 18(12): 6237 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 13 |
Effect of Smartphone App’s Intervention on Consumers’ Knowledge, Attitude, Practice, and Perception of Food Poisoning Prevention When Dining Out at Selected Rural Areas in Terengganu |
|
| Nur Afifah Mursyida Zaujan, Asma’ Ali, Malina Osman, Hui Yee Chee, Nur Raihana Ithnin, Norashiqin Misni, Surianti Sukeri, Christie Pei-Yee Chin | | International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2021; 18(19): 10294 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 14 |
Prenatal Screening of Trisomy 21: Could Oxidative Stress Markers Play a Role? |
|
| Angelika Buczynska, Iwona Sidorkiewicz, Slawomir Lawicki, Adam Jacek Kretowski, Monika Zbucka-Kretowska | | Journal of Clinical Medicine. 2021; 10(11): 2382 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 15 |
Resistance exercises improve physical function in chronic Chikungunya fever patients: a randomized controlled trial |
|
| Isabel L. NEUMANN, Daniella A. de OLIVEIRA, Erika L. de BARROS, Gabriela da S. SANTOS, Letícia S. de OLIVEIRA, Angela L. DUARTE, Claudia D. MARQUES, Andrea T. DANTAS, Diego DANTAS, Gisela R. de SIQUEIRA, Angélica da SILVA TENÓRIO | | European Journal of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine. 2021; 57(4) | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 16 |
The Effect of Health Education on Dietary Knowledge and Practices of Pregnant Women in Jordan: A Quasi-Experimental Study |
|
| Nesrin N Abu-Baker, Hanan A Abusbaitan, Safa A Al-Ashram, Ali Alshraifeen | | International Journal of Women's Health. 2021; Volume 13: 433 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 17 |
Quantifying Observed Prior Impact |
|
| David E. Jones, Robert N. Trangucci, Yang Chen | | Bayesian Analysis. 2021; -1(-1) | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 18 |
Diagnostic performance of a Recombinant Polymerase Amplification Test—Lateral Flow (RPA-LF) for cutaneous leishmaniasis in an endemic setting of Colombia |
|
| Alexandra Cossio, Jimena Jojoa, María del Mar Castro, Ruth Mabel Castillo, Lyda Osorio, Thomas R. Shelite, Nancy Gore Saravia, Peter C. Melby, Bruno L. Travi, Philippe Büscher | | PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases. 2021; 15(4): e0009291 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 19 |
Pre-, Peri-, and Postoperative Intravenous Ropivacaine versus that of Lidocaine for Analgesia after Hand-Assisted Laparoscopic Surgery of Left Colon Cancer: A Retrospective Analysis |
|
| Xiafang Gu, Chengjiao Xiao | | Journal of Investigative Surgery. 2021; 34(12): 1322 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 20 |
Efficacy of two-week therapy with doxycycline-based quadruple regimen versus levofloxacin concomitant regimen for helicobacter pylori infection: a prospective single-center randomized controlled trial |
|
| Marouf Alhalabi, Mohammed Waleed Alassi, Kamal Alaa Eddin, Khaled Cheha | | BMC Infectious Diseases. 2021; 21(1) | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 21 |
Determining representative sample size for validation of continuous, large continental remote sensing data |
|
| Megan L. Blatchford, Chris M. Mannaerts, Yijian Zeng | | International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation. 2021; 94: 102235 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 22 |
Antiosteoporosis Effect and Possible Mechanisms of the Ingredients of Fructus Psoraleae in Animal Models of Osteoporosis: A Preclinical Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis |
|
| Zhou Lin, Junju Zheng, Jiaru Chen, Mangmang Chen, Shuangxia Dong, German Gil | | Oxidative Medicine and Cellular Longevity. 2021; 2021: 1 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 23 |
Longitudinal Analysis of the Relation Between Clinical Impairment and Gray Matter Degeneration in Spinocerebellar Ataxia Type 7 Patients |
|
| Anabel Contreras, Gabriel Ramirez-Garcia, Amanda Chirino, Consuelo Morgado-Valle, Erick H. Pasaye, Carlos Hernandez-Castillo, Rosalinda Díaz, Juan Fernandez-Ruiz, Luis Beltran-Parrazal | | The Cerebellum. 2021; 20(3): 346 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 24 |
Clinical and Economic Evaluation of the Impact of Midazolam on Morphine Therapy for Pain Relief in Critically Ill Ventilated Infants with Respiratory Distress Syndrome |
|
| Dina Abushanab, Fouad F. Abounahia, Omar Alsoukhni, Mohammed Abdelaal, Daoud Al-Badriyeh | | Pediatric Drugs. 2021; 23(2): 143 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 25 |
LC-MS/MS quantification of fat soluble vitamers – A systematic review |
|
| G.R.P. Arachchige, E.B. Thorstensen, M. Coe, E.J. McKenzie, J.M. O'Sullivan, C.J. Pook | | Analytical Biochemistry. 2021; 613: 113980 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 26 |
Population Pharmacokinetic Method to Predict Within-Subject Variability Using Single-Period Clinical Data |
|
| Won-ho Kang, Jae-yeon Lee, Jung-woo Chae, Kyeong-Ryoon Lee, In-hwan Baek, Min-Soo Kim, Hyun-moon Back, Sangkeun Jung, Craig Shaffer, Rada Savic, Hwi-yeol Yun | | Pharmaceuticals. 2021; 14(2): 114 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 27 |
Does Tai Chi improve antioxidant and anti-inflammatory abilities via the KEAP1-NRF2 pathway and increase blood oxygen level in lung cancer patients: A randomized controlled trial? |
|
| Mi Jiang, Hao Zhao, Jiahui Liu, Xuewen Zhao, Liying Jin, Ruijin Pan | | European Journal of Integrative Medicine. 2020; 37: 101161 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 28 |
The effect of sampling technique training using UNPAD statistical analysis series on sampling technique ability |
|
| R Jatnika, M Haffas, H Agustiani | | Journal of Physics: Conference Series. 2020; 1469(1): 012146 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 29 |
Bupleuri Radix Prevents the Recurrences of Resected Colonic Polyps by Affecting Angiogenin-2-Induced Protein Kinase B/Akt Signaling |
|
| Qiang Gao, Guihong Yu, Minghui Yu, Xinping Wang, Dali Zheng | | Journal of Oncology. 2020; 2020: 1 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 30 |
A Preclinical Systematic Review of Curcumin for Protecting the Kidney with Ischemia Reperfusion Injury |
|
| Zi-Hao Wang, Li-Hui Deng, Chang-Wei Chi, Hong Wang, Yue-Yue Huang, Qun Zheng, Hong Zheng | | Oxidative Medicine and Cellular Longevity. 2020; 2020: 1 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 31 |
Quantitative Assessment of Thyroid Nodules Using Dual-Energy Computed Tomography: Iodine Concentration Measurement and Multiparametric Texture Analysis for Differentiating between Malignant and Benign Lesions |
|
| Hayato Tomita, Hirofumi Kuno, Kotaro Sekiya, Katharina Otani, Osamu Sakai, Baojun Li, Takashi Hiyama, Keiichi Nomura, Hidefumi Mimura, Tatsushi Kobayashi | | International Journal of Endocrinology. 2020; 2020: 1 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 32 |
Early mobilization reduces delirium after coronary artery bypass graft surgery |
|
| Fahimeh Shirvani, Seyed Ali Naji, Elham Davari, Mohsen Sedighi | | Asian Cardiovascular and Thoracic Annals. 2020; 28(9): 566 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 33 |
The effectiveness of online interventions for patients with gynecological cancer: An integrative review |
|
| Huicong Lin, Mingzhu Ye, Sally Wai-chi Chan, Jiemin Zhu, Honggu He | | Gynecologic Oncology. 2020; 158(1): 143 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 34 |
Systematic Review of Stem-Cell-Based Therapy of Burn Wounds: Lessons Learned from Animal and Clinical Studies |
|
| Josefine Lin Henriksen, Nana Brandborg Sřrensen, Trine Fink, Vladimir Zachar, Simone Riis Porsborg | | Cells. 2020; 9(12): 2545 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 35 |
Basic principles of sample size calculation |
|
| Shivam Pandey | | Journal of the Practice of Cardiovascular Sciences. 2020; 6(2): 123 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 36 |
The Significance of Apolipoprotein E Measurement in the Screening of Fetal Down Syndrome |
|
| Angelika Buczynska, Iwona Sidorkiewicz, Slawomir Lawicki, Adam Kretowski, Monika Zbucka-Kretowska | | Journal of Clinical Medicine. 2020; 9(12): 3995 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 37 |
Sample size calculation: Basic principles |
|
| Sabyasachi Das, Koel Mitra, Mohanchandra Mandal | | Indian Journal of Anaesthesia. 2016; 60(9): 652 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | |
|
|
|
| |
|
Search Pubmed for