Sample size estimation: Current practice and considerations for original investigations in MRI technical development studies

Purpose To investigate and to provide guidance for sample size selection based on the current practice in MR technical development studies in which healthy volunteers are examined. Methods All original articles published in Magnetic Resonance in Medicine between 2017 and 2019 were investigated and c...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Magnetic resonance in medicine 2021-04, Vol.85 (4), p.2109-2116
Hauptverfasser: Hanspach, Jannis, Nagel, Armin M., Hensel, Bernhard, Uder, Michael, Koros, Leon, Laun, Frederik B.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 2116
container_issue 4
container_start_page 2109
container_title Magnetic resonance in medicine
container_volume 85
creator Hanspach, Jannis
Nagel, Armin M.
Hensel, Bernhard
Uder, Michael
Koros, Leon
Laun, Frederik B.
description Purpose To investigate and to provide guidance for sample size selection based on the current practice in MR technical development studies in which healthy volunteers are examined. Methods All original articles published in Magnetic Resonance in Medicine between 2017 and 2019 were investigated and categorized according to technique, anatomical region, and magnetic field strength. The number of examined healthy volunteers (ie, the sample size) was collected and evaluated, whereas the number of patients was not considered. Papers solely measuring patients, animals, phantoms, specimens, or studies using existing data, for example, from an open databank, or consisting only of theoretical work or simulations were excluded. Results The median sample size of the 882 included studies was 6. There were some peaks in the sample size distribution (eg, 1, 5, and 10). In 49.9%, 82.1%, and 95.6% of the studies, the sample size was smaller or equal to 5, 10, and 20, respectively. Conclusion We observed a large variance in sample sizes reflecting the variety of studies published in Magnetic Resonance in Medicine. Therefore, it can be concluded that it is current practice to balance the need for statistical power with the demand to minimize experiments involving healthy humans, often by choosing small sample sizes between 1 and 10. Naturally, this observation does not release an investigator from ensuring that sufficient data are acquired to reach statistical conclusions.
doi_str_mv 10.1002/mrm.28550
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2451854217</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2451854217</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3880-474c0325a445eb59fff235cb1c99c5fad6782586d4a5824947a11c3030acef693</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp10U1L7DAUBuAgio4fC_-ABNzooprPtnEng_cqOAh-rEsmPdVIm9SkVbz442_GGV0IrrI4T15y8iK0T8kJJYSddqE7YaWUZA1NqGQsY1KJdTQhhSAZp0psoe0YnwkhShViE21xTmTJcjlBH3e661vA0f4DDHGwnR6sd2d4OoYAbsB90GawBrB2NTbeRVtD-DQRNz5gH-yjdbrF1r0u7j-uZtbh2e0VHsA8OWvSvIZXaH3fLULjMNYW4i7aaHQbYW917qCHPxf308vs-ubv1fT8OjO8LEkmCmEIZ1ILIWEuVdM0jEszp0YpIxtd50XJZJnXQqethBKFptRwwok20OSK76CjZW4f_MuYXll1NhpoW-3Aj7FiQtJSCkaLRA9_0Gc_hrTfQhU8p1wRntTxUpngYwzQVH1IPxfeK0qqRSVVqqT6rCTZg1XiOO-g_pZfHSRwugRvtoX335Oq2e1sGfkfgvCW1g</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2473613903</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Sample size estimation: Current practice and considerations for original investigations in MRI technical development studies</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Wiley Online Library All Journals</source><creator>Hanspach, Jannis ; Nagel, Armin M. ; Hensel, Bernhard ; Uder, Michael ; Koros, Leon ; Laun, Frederik B.</creator><creatorcontrib>Hanspach, Jannis ; Nagel, Armin M. ; Hensel, Bernhard ; Uder, Michael ; Koros, Leon ; Laun, Frederik B.</creatorcontrib><description>Purpose To investigate and to provide guidance for sample size selection based on the current practice in MR technical development studies in which healthy volunteers are examined. Methods All original articles published in Magnetic Resonance in Medicine between 2017 and 2019 were investigated and categorized according to technique, anatomical region, and magnetic field strength. The number of examined healthy volunteers (ie, the sample size) was collected and evaluated, whereas the number of patients was not considered. Papers solely measuring patients, animals, phantoms, specimens, or studies using existing data, for example, from an open databank, or consisting only of theoretical work or simulations were excluded. Results The median sample size of the 882 included studies was 6. There were some peaks in the sample size distribution (eg, 1, 5, and 10). In 49.9%, 82.1%, and 95.6% of the studies, the sample size was smaller or equal to 5, 10, and 20, respectively. Conclusion We observed a large variance in sample sizes reflecting the variety of studies published in Magnetic Resonance in Medicine. Therefore, it can be concluded that it is current practice to balance the need for statistical power with the demand to minimize experiments involving healthy humans, often by choosing small sample sizes between 1 and 10. Naturally, this observation does not release an investigator from ensuring that sufficient data are acquired to reach statistical conclusions.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0740-3194</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1522-2594</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1002/mrm.28550</identifier><identifier>PMID: 33058265</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</publisher><subject>current practice ; Data acquisition ; Field strength ; Humans ; Investigations ; Magnetic fields ; Magnetic Resonance Imaging ; Medicine ; methodological MRI developments ; number of subjects ; number of volunteers ; Phantoms, Imaging ; proof‐of‐principle studies ; Resonance ; Sample Size ; sample size estimation ; Size distribution ; Statistics</subject><ispartof>Magnetic resonance in medicine, 2021-04, Vol.85 (4), p.2109-2116</ispartof><rights>2020 The Authors. published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine</rights><rights>2020 The Authors. Magnetic Resonance in Medicine published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine.</rights><rights>2020. This article is published under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3880-474c0325a445eb59fff235cb1c99c5fad6782586d4a5824947a11c3030acef693</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3880-474c0325a445eb59fff235cb1c99c5fad6782586d4a5824947a11c3030acef693</cites><orcidid>0000-0001-5416-7752 ; 0000-0002-9269-5609</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002%2Fmrm.28550$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002%2Fmrm.28550$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,1411,27901,27902,45550,45551</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33058265$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Hanspach, Jannis</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nagel, Armin M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hensel, Bernhard</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Uder, Michael</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Koros, Leon</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Laun, Frederik B.</creatorcontrib><title>Sample size estimation: Current practice and considerations for original investigations in MRI technical development studies</title><title>Magnetic resonance in medicine</title><addtitle>Magn Reson Med</addtitle><description>Purpose To investigate and to provide guidance for sample size selection based on the current practice in MR technical development studies in which healthy volunteers are examined. Methods All original articles published in Magnetic Resonance in Medicine between 2017 and 2019 were investigated and categorized according to technique, anatomical region, and magnetic field strength. The number of examined healthy volunteers (ie, the sample size) was collected and evaluated, whereas the number of patients was not considered. Papers solely measuring patients, animals, phantoms, specimens, or studies using existing data, for example, from an open databank, or consisting only of theoretical work or simulations were excluded. Results The median sample size of the 882 included studies was 6. There were some peaks in the sample size distribution (eg, 1, 5, and 10). In 49.9%, 82.1%, and 95.6% of the studies, the sample size was smaller or equal to 5, 10, and 20, respectively. Conclusion We observed a large variance in sample sizes reflecting the variety of studies published in Magnetic Resonance in Medicine. Therefore, it can be concluded that it is current practice to balance the need for statistical power with the demand to minimize experiments involving healthy humans, often by choosing small sample sizes between 1 and 10. Naturally, this observation does not release an investigator from ensuring that sufficient data are acquired to reach statistical conclusions.</description><subject>current practice</subject><subject>Data acquisition</subject><subject>Field strength</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Investigations</subject><subject>Magnetic fields</subject><subject>Magnetic Resonance Imaging</subject><subject>Medicine</subject><subject>methodological MRI developments</subject><subject>number of subjects</subject><subject>number of volunteers</subject><subject>Phantoms, Imaging</subject><subject>proof‐of‐principle studies</subject><subject>Resonance</subject><subject>Sample Size</subject><subject>sample size estimation</subject><subject>Size distribution</subject><subject>Statistics</subject><issn>0740-3194</issn><issn>1522-2594</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2021</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>24P</sourceid><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp10U1L7DAUBuAgio4fC_-ABNzooprPtnEng_cqOAh-rEsmPdVIm9SkVbz442_GGV0IrrI4T15y8iK0T8kJJYSddqE7YaWUZA1NqGQsY1KJdTQhhSAZp0psoe0YnwkhShViE21xTmTJcjlBH3e661vA0f4DDHGwnR6sd2d4OoYAbsB90GawBrB2NTbeRVtD-DQRNz5gH-yjdbrF1r0u7j-uZtbh2e0VHsA8OWvSvIZXaH3fLULjMNYW4i7aaHQbYW917qCHPxf308vs-ubv1fT8OjO8LEkmCmEIZ1ILIWEuVdM0jEszp0YpIxtd50XJZJnXQqethBKFptRwwok20OSK76CjZW4f_MuYXll1NhpoW-3Aj7FiQtJSCkaLRA9_0Gc_hrTfQhU8p1wRntTxUpngYwzQVH1IPxfeK0qqRSVVqqT6rCTZg1XiOO-g_pZfHSRwugRvtoX335Oq2e1sGfkfgvCW1g</recordid><startdate>202104</startdate><enddate>202104</enddate><creator>Hanspach, Jannis</creator><creator>Nagel, Armin M.</creator><creator>Hensel, Bernhard</creator><creator>Uder, Michael</creator><creator>Koros, Leon</creator><creator>Laun, Frederik B.</creator><general>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</general><scope>24P</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>M7Z</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>7X8</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5416-7752</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9269-5609</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>202104</creationdate><title>Sample size estimation: Current practice and considerations for original investigations in MRI technical development studies</title><author>Hanspach, Jannis ; Nagel, Armin M. ; Hensel, Bernhard ; Uder, Michael ; Koros, Leon ; Laun, Frederik B.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3880-474c0325a445eb59fff235cb1c99c5fad6782586d4a5824947a11c3030acef693</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2021</creationdate><topic>current practice</topic><topic>Data acquisition</topic><topic>Field strength</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Investigations</topic><topic>Magnetic fields</topic><topic>Magnetic Resonance Imaging</topic><topic>Medicine</topic><topic>methodological MRI developments</topic><topic>number of subjects</topic><topic>number of volunteers</topic><topic>Phantoms, Imaging</topic><topic>proof‐of‐principle studies</topic><topic>Resonance</topic><topic>Sample Size</topic><topic>sample size estimation</topic><topic>Size distribution</topic><topic>Statistics</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Hanspach, Jannis</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nagel, Armin M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hensel, Bernhard</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Uder, Michael</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Koros, Leon</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Laun, Frederik B.</creatorcontrib><collection>Wiley Online Library Open Access</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Biochemistry Abstracts 1</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Magnetic resonance in medicine</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Hanspach, Jannis</au><au>Nagel, Armin M.</au><au>Hensel, Bernhard</au><au>Uder, Michael</au><au>Koros, Leon</au><au>Laun, Frederik B.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Sample size estimation: Current practice and considerations for original investigations in MRI technical development studies</atitle><jtitle>Magnetic resonance in medicine</jtitle><addtitle>Magn Reson Med</addtitle><date>2021-04</date><risdate>2021</risdate><volume>85</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>2109</spage><epage>2116</epage><pages>2109-2116</pages><issn>0740-3194</issn><eissn>1522-2594</eissn><abstract>Purpose To investigate and to provide guidance for sample size selection based on the current practice in MR technical development studies in which healthy volunteers are examined. Methods All original articles published in Magnetic Resonance in Medicine between 2017 and 2019 were investigated and categorized according to technique, anatomical region, and magnetic field strength. The number of examined healthy volunteers (ie, the sample size) was collected and evaluated, whereas the number of patients was not considered. Papers solely measuring patients, animals, phantoms, specimens, or studies using existing data, for example, from an open databank, or consisting only of theoretical work or simulations were excluded. Results The median sample size of the 882 included studies was 6. There were some peaks in the sample size distribution (eg, 1, 5, and 10). In 49.9%, 82.1%, and 95.6% of the studies, the sample size was smaller or equal to 5, 10, and 20, respectively. Conclusion We observed a large variance in sample sizes reflecting the variety of studies published in Magnetic Resonance in Medicine. Therefore, it can be concluded that it is current practice to balance the need for statistical power with the demand to minimize experiments involving healthy humans, often by choosing small sample sizes between 1 and 10. Naturally, this observation does not release an investigator from ensuring that sufficient data are acquired to reach statistical conclusions.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</pub><pmid>33058265</pmid><doi>10.1002/mrm.28550</doi><tpages>8</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5416-7752</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9269-5609</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0740-3194
ispartof Magnetic resonance in medicine, 2021-04, Vol.85 (4), p.2109-2116
issn 0740-3194
1522-2594
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2451854217
source MEDLINE; Wiley Online Library All Journals
subjects current practice
Data acquisition
Field strength
Humans
Investigations
Magnetic fields
Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Medicine
methodological MRI developments
number of subjects
number of volunteers
Phantoms, Imaging
proof‐of‐principle studies
Resonance
Sample Size
sample size estimation
Size distribution
Statistics
title Sample size estimation: Current practice and considerations for original investigations in MRI technical development studies
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-07T07%3A26%3A45IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Sample%20size%20estimation:%20Current%20practice%20and%20considerations%20for%20original%20investigations%20in%20MRI%20technical%20development%20studies&rft.jtitle=Magnetic%20resonance%20in%20medicine&rft.au=Hanspach,%20Jannis&rft.date=2021-04&rft.volume=85&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=2109&rft.epage=2116&rft.pages=2109-2116&rft.issn=0740-3194&rft.eissn=1522-2594&rft_id=info:doi/10.1002/mrm.28550&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2451854217%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2473613903&rft_id=info:pmid/33058265&rfr_iscdi=true