2018
DOI: 10.1016/j.acuroe.2018.05.012
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Sample size and the establishment of safety in perioperative medicine

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
2

Citation Types

0
3
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5

Relationship

0
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 5 publications
(5 citation statements)
references
References 3 publications
0
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The exclusion criteria included: (1) disturbance of consciousness; (2) mental illness; and (3) the inability to care for oneself. According to the calculation principle of Kendal sample size, the sample should be larger than 10 times the number of estimated parameters (Castro Alves & Kendall, 2018). The number of free parameters to be estimated in this study was 21 and the minimum sample size required was 210.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The exclusion criteria included: (1) disturbance of consciousness; (2) mental illness; and (3) the inability to care for oneself. According to the calculation principle of Kendal sample size, the sample should be larger than 10 times the number of estimated parameters (Castro Alves & Kendall, 2018). The number of free parameters to be estimated in this study was 21 and the minimum sample size required was 210.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The sample size was estimated using the Kendall sample size estimation method ( 12 ), which recommends a sample size of 5 to 10 times the number of variables. Considering a 20% rate of invalid questionnaires, the required sample size was determined to be between 125 and 250 participants.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In estimating the sample size, the primary reference is the sample estimation method of Castro and Kendall, which ensures that the sample size reaches at least 10–15 times the number of variables. 25 There were 15 variables in this study; considering the validity of the questionnaire during the survey process, another 10% enlarged the sample size, and 165-248 patients should be collected to meet the needs. A total of 250 questionnaires were distributed in this study since four patients had problematic answers, of which 246 were considered valid, resulting in a valid return rate of 98.4%.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%