↓ Skip to main content

Sample size calculations for skewed distributions

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Research Methodology, April 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (69th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (56th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users
video
1 YouTube creator

Citations

dimensions_citation
25 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
82 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
Sample size calculations for skewed distributions
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology, April 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12874-015-0023-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Bonnie Cundill, Neal DE Alexander

Abstract

Sample size calculations should correspond to the intended method of analysis. Nevertheless, for non-normal distributions, they are often done on the basis of normal approximations, even when the data are to be analysed using generalized linear models (GLMs). For the case of comparison of two means, we use GLM theory to derive sample size formulae, with particular cases being the negative binomial, Poisson, binomial, and gamma families. By simulation we estimate the performance of normal approximations, which, via the identity link, are special cases of our approach, and for common link functions such as the log. The negative binomial and gamma scenarios are motivated by examples in hookworm vaccine trials and insecticide-treated materials, respectively. Calculations on the link function (log) scale work well for the negative binomial and gamma scenarios examined and are often superior to the normal approximations. However, they have little advantage for the Poisson and binomial distributions. The proposed method is suitable for sample size calculations for comparisons of means of highly skewed outcome variables.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 82 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 82 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 20 24%
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 20%
Student > Master 8 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 6%
Other 5 6%
Other 13 16%
Unknown 15 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 17 21%
Social Sciences 9 11%
Engineering 8 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 9%
Mathematics 4 5%
Other 14 17%
Unknown 23 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 27 September 2023.
All research outputs
#6,940,425
of 23,390,392 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#1,028
of 2,065 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#80,000
of 264,969 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#10
of 23 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,390,392 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 70th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,065 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.3. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 264,969 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 23 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% of its contemporaries.