2006
DOI: 10.1001/archpsyc.63.5.484
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Caution Regarding the Use of Pilot Studies to Guide Power Calculations for Study Proposals

Abstract: Clinical researchers often propose (or review committees demand) pilot studies to determine whether a study is worth performing and to guide power calculations. The most likely outcomes are that (1) studies worth performing are aborted and (2) studies that are not aborted are underpowered. There are many excellent reasons for performing pilot studies. The argument herein is not meant to discourage clinical researchers from performing pilot studies (or review committees from requiring them) but simply to cautio… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

5
484
0
3

Year Published

2008
2008
2018
2018

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 597 publications
(497 citation statements)
references
References 25 publications
5
484
0
3
Order By: Relevance
“…Teaching caregivers activity use has added value by reducing their objective burden and enhancing skills. Given that pilot studies tend to yield large effect sizes (42), and that the control group did not evince benefit in all areas as the experimental group after treatment receipt, it is important to test TAP on a larger scale, validate it with diverse dyads, and examine the underlying physiological mechanisms by which symptom reduction occurs.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Teaching caregivers activity use has added value by reducing their objective burden and enhancing skills. Given that pilot studies tend to yield large effect sizes (42), and that the control group did not evince benefit in all areas as the experimental group after treatment receipt, it is important to test TAP on a larger scale, validate it with diverse dyads, and examine the underlying physiological mechanisms by which symptom reduction occurs.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We are less certain about the correlational analyses. We did not perform a pilot study before this project (for cautionary notes regarding the use of pilot studies for power calculations, see Kraemer, Mintz, Noda, Tinklenberg, & Yesavage, 2006), and thus the analyses need to be regarded as exploratory.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We are less certain about the correlational analyses. We did not perform a pilot study before this project (for cautionary notes regarding the use of pilot studies for power calculations, see Kraemer, Mintz, Noda, Tinklenberg, & Yesavage, 2006), and thus the analyses need to be regarded as exploratory.In conclusion, depressed and nondepressed participants at risk for CVD differ in PA and NA but not in cortisol or cardiopulmonary variables measured at several times during the day.Furthermore, the same sample demonstrated an impaired cortisol response to psychological stress, and a lower TF-RSA, although their cardiovascular reactivity was otherwise similar to controls . HRV was related to NA in controls but not among depressed patients with CVD risk.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Controversies around the applicability of randomization stem from situations where preliminary data suggests a new treatment being significantly more effective than the standard treatment [65]. However, preliminary data from smaller preceding clinical trials rarely provide reliable effect size estimates [66], and therefore cannot give sufficient evidence against clinical equipoise. Following the experiences with the early clinical trials during the HIV/AIDS pandemic in the 1980s, a controversy erupted over whether in the absence of a standard treatment all patients should receive immediate access to study treatment, with only a remote chance of improvement.…”
Section: Common Challenges Randomization Controls and Equipoisementioning
confidence: 99%