On determining sample size in experiments involving laboratory animals
Abstract
Scientists using laboratory animals are under increasing pressure to justify their sample sizes using a "power analysis". In this paper I review the three methods currently used to determine sample size: "tradition" or "common sense", the "resource equation" and the "power analysis". I explain how, using the "KISS" approach, scientists can make a provisional choice of sample size using any method, and then easily estimate the effect size likely to be detectable according to a power analysis. Should they want to be able to detect a smaller effect they can increase their provisional sample size and recalculate the effect size. This is simple, does not need any software and provides justification for the sample size in the terms used in a power analysis.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
When the experiment tests the effect of an intervention on the mean of a continuous outcome measure, the sample size can be calculated a priori based on a mathematical relationship between the predefined, biologically relevant effect size, variability estimated from prior data, chosen significance level, power, and sample size.
“When the experiment tests the effect of an intervention on the mean of a continuous outcome measure, the sample size can be calculated a priori, based on a mathematical relationship between the predefined, biologically relevant effect size, variability estimated from prior data, chosen significance level, power, and sample size (see Box 3 and [17,41] for practical advice).”
From Reporting animal research: Explanation and elaboration for the ARRIVE guidelines 2.0 (2020) · cites this paper as [41]
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 25 · Cited by 213
- Authors
- Festing, M. F.
- Affiliations
- University of Leicester (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Festing, Michael FW
- ORCID
- Festing, Michael FW
- Venue
- Laboratory Animals
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2018-01-08
- Volume
- 52
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 341-350
- ISSN
- 0023-6772 (ISSN-L)
- 1758-1117
- OpenAlex
- W2783298304
- Cited by
- 213
- References
- 25
- Citations by year
- 2026: 37 · 2025: 46 · 2024: 32 · 2023: 24 · 2022: 33 · 2021: 22 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 1
- FWCI
- 15.00
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Laboratory Animals (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Veterinary › Small Animals › Animal testing and alternatives
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Epidemiology
- Keywords
- sample size determination, power analysis, effect size estimation, animal experimentation
- MeSH terms
- Animals, Animal Welfare, Animals, Laboratory, Data Interpretation, Statistical, Research Design, Models, Statistical, Sample Size
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