Power(ful) myths: misconceptions regarding sample size in quality of life research

Anderson, Samantha F.

doi:10.1007/s11136-021-03020-y

Cited by 3 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 99 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Reports, therefore, advocated using core outcome sets 27,28 . When planning a study, the statistical power to prove an association is essential since inadequate or absent sample size planning can lead to sample sizes that are, at best, inefficient and, at worst, ethically questionable 29,30 …”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This has the potential to identify associations that individual studies may not have been capable of detecting, leading to a significant enhancement in the quality of research. 29 To minimize negligible research waste, some authors have recommended systematically searching the literature before starting a research project. 47 Managing the increasing publication volume 1 indeed requires meta-analyses, which can provide a quicker and more comprehensive overview of the results.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…One potential solution involves enhancing supervision and training, 73 while another approach is using or creating core outcome sets, 23 which enhances the ability to produce meta‐analyses. This has the potential to identify associations that individual studies may not have been capable of detecting, leading to a significant enhancement in the quality of research 29 . To minimize negligible research waste, some authors have recommended systematically searching the literature before starting a research project 47 .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…27,28 When planning a study, the statistical power to prove an association is essential since inadequate or absent sample size planning can lead to sample sizes that are, at best, inefficient and, at worst, ethically questionable. 29,30 When conducting a study, the study design can make recruitment and retention in clinical trials difficult, creating wasteful research. 31 Difficulty in recruiting participants can lead to an underrepresentation of specific demographic groups, potentially biasing the results.…”

Section: Methodological Research Wastementioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Five aspects of research waste in biomedicine: A scoping review

Rosengaard,

Andersen,

Rosenberg

et al. 2024

J Evidence Based Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundThe number of published journal articles has grown exponentially during the last 30 years, which may have led to some wasteful research. However, the terminology associated with research waste remains unclear. To address this, we aimed to identify, define, and categorize the aspects of research waste in published biomedical reports.MethodsIn this scoping review, we systematically searched for biomedical literature reports from 1993 to 2023 in two databases, focusing on those addressing and defining research waste. Through data charting, we analyzed and categorized the aspects of research waste.ResultsBased on 4285 initial records in the searches, a total of 832 reports were included in the analysis. The included reports were primarily narrative reviews (26%) and original reports (21%). We categorized research waste into five aspects: methodological, invisible, negligible, underreported, and structural (MINUS) research waste. More than half of the reports (56%) covered methodological research waste concerning flaws in study design, study conduct, or analysis. Invisible research waste covered nonpublication, discontinuation, and lack of data‐sharing. Negligible research waste primarily concerned unnecessary repetition, for example, stemming from the absence of preceding a trial with a systematic review of the literature. Underreported research waste mainly included poor reporting, resulting in a lack of transparency. Structural research waste comprised inadequate management, collaboration, prioritization, implementation, and dissemination.ConclusionMINUS encapsulates the five main aspects of research waste. Recognizing these aspects of research waste is important for addressing and preventing further research waste and thereby ensuring efficient resource allocation and scientific integrity.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodological Research Wastementioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Five aspects of research waste in biomedicine: A scoping review

Rosengaard,

Andersen,

Rosenberg

et al. 2024

J Evidence Based Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The third paper [19] addresses the importance of considering adequate sample size during study design to ensure research resources are utilized in an ethical manner and maximize impact and replicability. Common misconceptions related to sample size planning specific to (HR)QL/PRO studies and non-technical corrections to these misconceptions are discussed, including a sample size reporting checklist, to help researchers have a more nuanced understanding of sample size planning and items to consider during (HR) QL/PRO study design and reporting.…”

Section: The Special Sectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Introduction to the special section "Reducing research waste in (health-related) quality of life research"

Rutherford

Boehnke

2022

Qual Life Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction to the Special Section Reducing Research Waste in (Health-Related) Quality of Life Research

Rutherford¹,

Böhnke²

2022

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research waste relating to the production and reporting of health and medical research is a major problem. Each year, resources are wasted on research that asks the wrong questions, uses inappropriate designs, includes unrepresentative or small samples, uses incorrect methods of analysis, and is inappropriately reported, disseminated, or translated into decision-making. These issues are pertinent to (health-related) quality of life ((HR)QL)/patient-reported outcome (PRO) research. In an attempt to reduce waste and maximise efficiency, the Lancet’s REWARD (REduce research Waste And Reward Diligence) Campaign invited everyone involved in research to critically examine how they work to reduce waste and maximise efficiency, and to strive to improve the value of the funds invested in the research we commission, deliver, publish, and implement. However, despite nearly a decade since the Lancet series, research waste is still a major problem. In 2021, the Editors of Quality of Life Research journal issued a call for papers on reducing (HR)QL/PRO research waste and optimizing (HR)QL/PRO data. Papers in the special section discuss the many contributors to research waste and the editors, in their editorial, highlight the ongoing issues that as researchers we should all be mindful of, and potential ways in which we could all do our bit to reduce research waste in the (HR)QL/PRO field.

show abstract

Power(ful) myths: misconceptions regarding sample size in quality of life research

Cited by 3 publications

References 99 publications

Five aspects of research waste in biomedicine: A scoping review

Five aspects of research waste in biomedicine: A scoping review

Introduction to the special section "Reducing research waste in (health-related) quality of life research"

Introduction to the Special Section Reducing Research Waste in (Health-Related) Quality of Life Research

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About