Cited by 67Statistical Methods in Clinical TrialsStatistical Methods in EpidemiologyMeta-analysis and systematic reviews

Effect of continuous versus dichotomous outcome variables on study power when sample sizes of orthopaedic randomized trials are small

Bhandari, Mohit, Lochner, Heather, Tornetta, Paul·2002·Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery

Abstract

It is often not feasible to conduct large trials in orthopaedic surgery. Therefore, surgeons must identify strategies to optimize the statistical power of their smaller studies. The aim of this study was to compare study power in randomized trials with continuous versus dichotomous outcome variables. We performed a systematic review of the literature to identify randomized trials in orthopaedic trauma. Of these, we examined only those trials with small sample sizes (50 patients or less). The outcomes in each eligible study were categorized as continuous or dichotomous. Standard power calculations were performed for each study, and comparisons were made between continuous and dichotomous outcome variables. We identified 196 randomized trials in orthopaedic trauma. Of these, 76 trials had a sample size of 50 patients or fewer (29 trials with continuous outcomes, 47 trials with dichotomous outcomes). Studies that reported continuous outcomes had a significantly higher mean power than those that reported dichotomous variables (power 49% vs 38%, p=0.042). Twice as many trials with continuous outcome variables reached acceptable levels of study power (i.e. >80% power) when compared with trials with dichotomous variables (37% vs 18.6%, p=0.04). When orthopaedic surgeons anticipate small sample sizes for their study, they can optimize their study's statistical power by choosing a continuous outcome variable.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s004020100347

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bhandari, M., Lochner, H., & Tornetta, P.
Affiliations
  • McMaster University Medical Centre (CA)
  • Boston Medical Center (US)
Corresponding author
Bhandari, Mohit
Venue
Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery
Published
2002-02-01
Volume
122
Issue
2
Pages
96-98
ISSN
  • 0936-8051 (ISSN-L)
  • 1434-3916
OpenAlex
W2027513428
Cited by
67
References
5
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 2
FWCI
1.52
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Epidemiology
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
Keywords
statistical power, small sample size, randomized controlled trials, sample size determination
MeSH terms
Data Interpretation, Statistical, Female, Humans, Male, Quality Control, Random Allocation, Sensitivity and Specificity, Cluster Analysis, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Treatment Outcome, Sample Size, Orthopedic Procedures, Fractures, Bone

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review