JOURNAL HOME CME HOME THIS MONTH PAST ISSUES ETOC COLLECTIONS
AUTHORS REVIEWERS EDITORIAL BOARD FEEDBACK RSS HELP
A&A International Anesthesia Research Society
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a colleague
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Muñoz, H. R.
Right arrow Articles by Larsen, B.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Muñoz, H. R.
Right arrow Articles by Larsen, B.
Anesth Analg 2001;92:797
© 2001 International Anesthesia Research Society

LETTERS

Power Analysis with More than Two Groups

Hernán R. Muñoz, MD, and Jorge A. Dagnino, MD

Department of Anesthesiology Catholic University of Chile Santiago, Chile

We have read with interest some studies published in Anesthesia & Analgesia last year in which power analysis is performed to calculate the sample size with more than two groups (1–3). We have not been able to find a reliable method to perform this calculation. Some statistical packages do this by introducing a mathematical artifact consisting basically of a reduction of several groups into only two groups: one deemed as control and the second including all the other interventions in the study. The calculated n for this last group is then divided by the number of potential groups, except the control, to give the sample size. Evidently, this is not correct as the final power turns out to be only a fraction of the one originally defined.

In addition, in some studies, the magnitude of change in the variable of interest that is considered significant is not clear (1,2). This last value, however, is absolutely necessary to calculate the sample size with two groups (4).

We think that it is essential that the authors give all the assumptions used to calculate the sample size with more than two groups and the appropriate reference for the applied method.

References

  1. Larsen B, Seitz A, Larsen R. Recovery of cognitive function after remifentanil-propofol anesthesia: a comparison with desflurane and sevoflurane anesthesia. Anesth Analg 2000; 90: 168–74.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  2. Gesztesi Z, Sa Rego MM, White PF. The comparative effectiveness of fentanyl and its newer analogs during extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy under monitored anesthesia care. Anesth Analg 2000; 90: 567–70.[Free Full Text]
  3. Zarate E, Watcha MF, White PF, et al. A comparison of the costs and efficacy of ondansetron versus dolasetron for antiemetic prophylaxis. Anesth Analg 2000; 90: 1352–8.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  4. Altman DG. Clinical trials. In: Altman DG, ed. Practical statistics for medical research. London: Chapman & Hall, 1991: 440–76.
 

Response

Brita Larsen, MD

Department of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine University Hospital Homburg, Germany

In Response:

It is necessary to determine the number of patients per group by using a power analysis for a statistical examination of a relevant clinical difference.

Initially, a priori power analysis indicated that 17 patients were needed to be enrolled in each group (n1 = n2 = 17) to detect a 20% difference in the digit symbol substitution test (90% for remifentanil and 70% for sevoflurane, assuming the standard deviations taken from preliminary investigations).

Subsequently, we transferred this calculated sample size to the third group (desflurane, n3 = 17).

To take into account possible loss of patients as a result of noncompliance, we decided to increase the target sample size to 20 patients per group.

We consider the sample size of this calculation procedure to be appropriate to detect a relevant clinical difference.




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Anesth. Analg.Home page
I. Dobrydnjov, K. Axelsson, L. Berggren, J. Samarutel, and B. Holmstrom
Intrathecal and Oral Clonidine as Prophylaxis for Postoperative Alcohol Withdrawal Syndrome: A Randomized Double-Blinded Study
Anesth. Analg., March 1, 2004; 98(3): 738 - 744.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a colleague
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Muñoz, H. R.
Right arrow Articles by Larsen, B.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Muñoz, H. R.
Right arrow Articles by Larsen, B.

Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins Anesthesia & Analgesia® is published for the International Anesthesia Research Society® by Lippincott Williams & Wilkins with the assistance of Stanford University Libraries' HighWire Press®. Copyright 2006 by the International Anesthesia Research Society. Online ISSN: 1526-7598   Print ISSN: 0003-2999 HighWire Press