Sample size and effect size calculations are necessary in clinical studies in order to avoid false positive and false negative conclusions

Sample size and effect size calculations are necessary in clinical studies in order to avoid... In this issue of the Scandinavian Journal of Pain, Katja Venborg Pedersen and coworkers [1] present an interesting study evaluating the influence of unilateral painful visceral disease on sensory and morphometric changes in the referred pain area. Twenty-four patients with unilateral pain from kidney stone disease were studied before and after endoscopic percutaneous kidney stone surgery. These patients had suffered from the stone disease in median 7 months, and 9 of the patients had experienced 10 or more episodes of painful stone colics. Sensory assessments included electrical and mechanical stimuli, and morphometric analyses were by CT-and ultrasound-scans. The authors did not observe any differences between the ipsilateral and contralateral flanks, in regard to pain threshold, temporal summation, or tissue volume. This is a well-performed study that contradicts results of several comparable studies. The authors also deserve much credit for presenting skillfully, balanced arguments for this discrepancy. We will shortly return to this issue.1Are negative studies unsexy, not interesting and not worthy of publication?Based on the many negative findings of the study, a provocative discussion is offered: should studies with non-significant findings be published or not? Thirteen comparisons were made in this study, 10 of these were non-significant. Studies rejecting http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Scandinavian Journal of Pain de Gruyter

Sample size and effect size calculations are necessary in clinical studies in order to avoid false positive and false negative conclusions

Loading next page...
 
/lp/degruyter/sample-size-and-effect-size-calculations-are-necessary-in-clinical-svRdYWkR9e
Publisher
De Gruyter
Copyright
© 2013 Scandinavian Association for the Study of Pain
ISSN
1877-8860
eISSN
1877-8879
D.O.I.
10.1016/j.sjpain.2013.04.003
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

In this issue of the Scandinavian Journal of Pain, Katja Venborg Pedersen and coworkers [1] present an interesting study evaluating the influence of unilateral painful visceral disease on sensory and morphometric changes in the referred pain area. Twenty-four patients with unilateral pain from kidney stone disease were studied before and after endoscopic percutaneous kidney stone surgery. These patients had suffered from the stone disease in median 7 months, and 9 of the patients had experienced 10 or more episodes of painful stone colics. Sensory assessments included electrical and mechanical stimuli, and morphometric analyses were by CT-and ultrasound-scans. The authors did not observe any differences between the ipsilateral and contralateral flanks, in regard to pain threshold, temporal summation, or tissue volume. This is a well-performed study that contradicts results of several comparable studies. The authors also deserve much credit for presenting skillfully, balanced arguments for this discrepancy. We will shortly return to this issue.1Are negative studies unsexy, not interesting and not worthy of publication?Based on the many negative findings of the study, a provocative discussion is offered: should studies with non-significant findings be published or not? Thirteen comparisons were made in this study, 10 of these were non-significant. Studies rejecting

Journal

Scandinavian Journal of Painde Gruyter

Published: Dec 29, 2017

There are no references for this article.

You’re reading a free preview. Subscribe to read the entire article.


DeepDyve is your
personal research library

It’s your single place to instantly
discover and read the research
that matters to you.

Enjoy affordable access to
over 18 million articles from more than
15,000 peer-reviewed journals.

All for just $49/month

Explore the DeepDyve Library

Search

Query the DeepDyve database, plus search all of PubMed and Google Scholar seamlessly

Organize

Save any article or search result from DeepDyve, PubMed, and Google Scholar... all in one place.

Access

Get unlimited, online access to over 18 million full-text articles from more than 15,000 scientific journals.

Your journals are on DeepDyve

Read from thousands of the leading scholarly journals from SpringerNature, Elsevier, Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford University Press and more.

All the latest content is available, no embargo periods.

See the journals in your area

DeepDyve

Freelancer

DeepDyve

Pro

Price

FREE

$49/month
$360/year

Save searches from
Google Scholar,
PubMed

Create lists to
organize your research

Export lists, citations

Read DeepDyve articles

Abstract access only

Unlimited access to over
18 million full-text articles

Print

20 pages / month

PDF Discount

20% off