False negative point-of-care urine pregnancy tests in an urban academic emergency department: a retrospective cohort study

Power to Detect What? Considerations for Planning and Evaluating Sample Size

ACADEMIC ABSTRACT

In the wake of the replication crisis, social and personality psychologists have increased attention to power analysis and the adequacy of sample sizes. In this article, we analyze current controversies in this area, including choosing effect sizes, why and whether power analyses should be conducted on already-collected data, how to mitigate the negative effects of sample size criteria on specific kinds of research, and which power criterion to use. For novel research questions, we advocate that researchers base sample sizes on effects that are likely to be cost-effective for other people to implement (in applied settings) or to study (in basic research settings), given the limitations of interest-based minimums or field-wide effect sizes. We discuss two alternatives to power analysis, precision analysis and sequential analysis, and end with recommendations for improving the practices of researchers, reviewers, and journal editors in social-personality psychology.

PUBLIC ABSTRACT

Recently, social-personality psychology has been criticized for basing some of its conclusions on studies with low numbers of participants. As a result, power analysis, a mathematical way to ensure that a study has enough participants to reliably "detect" a given size of psychological effect, has become popular. This article describes power analysis and discusses some controversies about it, including how researchers should derive assumptions about effect size, and how the requirements of power analysis can be applied without harming research on hard-to-reach and marginalized communities. For novel research questions, we advocate that researchers base sample sizes on effects that are likely to be cost-effective for other people to implement (in applied settings) or to study (in basic research settings). We discuss two alternatives to power analysis, precision analysis and sequential analysis, and end with recommendations for improving the practices of researchers, reviewers, and journal editors in social-personality psychology.

Residual Seizure Rate of Intermittent Inpatient EEG Compared to a Continuous EEG Model

BACKGROUND

Subclinical seizures are common in hospitalized patients and require electroencephalography (EEG) for detection and intervention. At our institution, continuous EEG (cEEG) is not available, but intermittent EEGs are subject to constant live interpretation. As part of quality improvement (QI), we sought to estimate the residual missed seizure rate at a typical quaternary Canadian health care center without cEEG.

METHODS

We calculated residual risk percentages using the clinically validated 2HELPS2B score to risk-stratify EEGs before deriving a risk percentage using a MATLAB calculator which modeled the risk decay curve for each recording. We generated a range of estimated residual seizure rates depending on whether a pre-cEEG screening EEG was simulated, EEGs showing seizures were included, or repeat EEGs on the same patient were excluded.

RESULTS

Over a 4-month QI period, 499 inpatient EEGs were scored as low (n = 125), medium (n = 123), and high (n = 251) seizure risk according to 2HELPS2B criteria. Median recording duration was 1:00:06 (interquartile range, IQR 30:40-2:21:10). The model with highest residual seizure rate included recordings with confirmed electrographic seizures (median 20.83%, IQR 20.6-26.6%), while the model with lowest residual seizure rate was in seizure-free recordings (median 10.59%, IQR 4%-20.6%). These rates were significantly higher than the benchmark 5% miss-rate threshold set by 2HELPS2B (p<0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

We estimate that intermittent inpatient EEG misses 2-4 times more subclinical seizures than the 2HELPS2B-determined acceptable 5% seizure miss-rate threshold for cEEG. Future research is needed to determine the impact of potentially missed seizures on clinical care.