Format
Sort by
Items per page

Send to

Choose Destination

Links from PubMed

Items: 1 to 20 of 107

1.

Power failure: why small sample size undermines the reliability of neuroscience.

Button KS, Ioannidis JP, Mokrysz C, Nosek BA, Flint J, Robinson ES, Munafò MR.

Nat Rev Neurosci. 2013 May;14(5):365-76. doi: 10.1038/nrn3475. Epub 2013 Apr 10. Review. Erratum in: Nat Rev Neurosci. 2013 Jun;14(6):451.

PMID:
23571845
2.

Effect size: utility and application in neuroscience nursing.

Winkelman C.

J Neurosci Nurs. 2001 Aug;33(4):216-8. Review.

PMID:
11497075
3.

Subgroup analyses in randomised controlled trials: quantifying the risks of false-positives and false-negatives.

Brookes ST, Whitley E, Peters TJ, Mulheran PA, Egger M, Davey Smith G.

Health Technol Assess. 2001;5(33):1-56. Review.

4.

Why are reliability and validity important to neuroscience nurses?

Buelow JM, Hinkle JL.

J Neurosci Nurs. 2008 Dec;40(6):369-70, 372. No abstract available.

PMID:
19170305
5.
6.

[Aspects of sample size determination and power calculation illustrated on examples from rehabilitation research].

Kutschmann M, Bender R, Grouven U, Berg G.

Rehabilitation (Stuttg). 2006 Dec;45(6):377-84. German.

PMID:
17123220
7.

Sample size and the probability of a successful trial.

Chuang-Stein C.

Pharm Stat. 2006 Oct-Dec;5(4):305-9.

PMID:
17128428
8.

Effectiveness of strategies to increase the validity of findings from association studies: size vs. replication.

Weitkunat R, Kaelin E, Vuillaume G, Kallischnigg G.

BMC Med Res Methodol. 2010 May 28;10:47. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-10-47.

9.

Power and sample size estimation in microarray studies.

Lin WJ, Hsueh HM, Chen JJ.

BMC Bioinformatics. 2010 Jan 25;11:48. doi: 10.1186/1471-2105-11-48.

10.
11.

Erroneous analyses of interactions in neuroscience: a problem of significance.

Nieuwenhuis S, Forstmann BU, Wagenmakers EJ.

Nat Neurosci. 2011 Aug 26;14(9):1105-7. doi: 10.1038/nn.2886.

PMID:
21878926
12.
13.

Determining sample size and power in clinical trials: the forgotten essential.

Grimes DA, Schulz KF.

Semin Reprod Endocrinol. 1996 May;14(2):125-31. Review.

PMID:
8796935
14.

The reassessment of trial perspectives from interim data--a critical view.

Bauer P, Koenig F.

Stat Med. 2006 Jan 15;25(1):23-36.

PMID:
16220517
15.

Comparing two small samples with an unstable, treatment-independent baseline.

Janusonis S.

J Neurosci Methods. 2009 May 15;179(2):173-8. doi: 10.1016/j.jneumeth.2009.01.017. Epub 2009 Jan 31.

PMID:
19428524
16.

Sample size and power.

Whitney JD.

J Wound Ostomy Continence Nurs. 1999 Nov;26(6):314. No abstract available.

PMID:
10865617
17.

Confidence and precision increase with high statistical power.

Button KS, Ioannidis JP, Mokrysz C, Nosek BA, Flint J, Robinson ES, Munafò MR.

Nat Rev Neurosci. 2013 Aug;14(8):585-6. doi: 10.1038/nrn3475-c4. Epub 2013 Jul 3. No abstract available.

PMID:
23820778
18.

Why most published research findings are false.

Ioannidis JP.

PLoS Med. 2005 Aug;2(8):e124. Epub 2005 Aug 30.

19.

Why is psychiatric imaging clinically unreliable? Epistemological perspectives in clinical neuroscience.

Fusar-Poli P, Broome M, Barale F, Stanghellini G.

Psychother Psychosom. 2009;78(5):320-1. doi: 10.1159/000229771. Epub 2009 Jul 24. No abstract available.

PMID:
19628961
20.

Statistical power and effect sizes of clinical neuropsychology research.

Bezeau S, Graves R.

J Clin Exp Neuropsychol. 2001 Jun;23(3):399-406.

PMID:
11419453

Supplemental Content

Support Center