Sentences with phrase «study sample size»

Moreover, our small study sample size may explain the lack of support for our second hypothesis that adolescent sex would moderate the association between adolescent PA and body satisfaction.

The study sample size was small and it used only one intensity of light, 1,000 lux, which is far greater than the intensity of a typical handheld electronic device, she notes.

Not exact matches

A few of these include a too - small sample size and the simple fact that the participants knew what was being studied and were aware of the hypothesis.

In a study that ran from 1979 to 1996, researchers found from a sample of nearly 750 people age 65 or older, that those who drank diet soda on a daily basis had a 70 % greater increase in waist size than people who drank it less regularly or not at all.

Though only 9 % or so of consenters (4,552 people) uploaded a full week of reports on their physical activity, that's still a big sample size for an objectively measured, data - driven research study.

Unlike a similar study last year that found that women chiefs make more than men, this one had a far larger sample and controlled for «chief executives» tenure, characteristics of the firms (size, performance and risk), and the size and independence of the boards.»

The high median pay for female CFOs is partly a result of sample size — there were only 60 female CFOs at the S&P 500 companies that qualified for inclusion in the study during the last fiscal year, compared with 437 men, according to Equilar.

Finally, was the study's sample size large enough to have statistical significance?

A new meta - analysis of studies with 102 samples covering 56,984 firms finds a small but significant positive relationship on average between employee stock ownership and firm performance.25 The positive relationship holds across firm size and has increased over time, possibly because firms are learning to implement employee stock ownership more effectively.

(Washington, D.C.: Committee on Education and the Workforce, February, 13, 2002), http://archives.republicans.edlabor.house.gov/archive/hearings/107th/eer/enronthree21302/kruse.htm Another study comparing a matched sample of ESOP versus non-ESOP firms in with similar industries and workforce sizes among closely held companies, again, using population data on all available US DOL data followed the ESOP firms before and after their adoption of the ESOP from 1988 to 1998 along with the matched firms and found that 20 % of the ESOP firms had a defined benefit plan before adopting their ESOP, and 10 years later, after adopting their ESOP, they had defined benefit plans five times more than non-ESOP firms), 33.3 % of ESOP firms had a 401 (k) plan before adopting their ESOP with 52.4 % 10 years later (five times more than non-ESOP firms), and 35.7 % of ESOP firms had a deferred profit - sharing plan before adopting their ESOP with 51.2 % 10 years later (five times more than non-ESOP firms).

While most surveys rely on sample sizes of 1,000 or 2,000 people, Pew interviewed 35,000 adults in English and Spanish in 2007 and again in 2014 for the landscape study.

Sample size has to have some sort of impact, especially with a study that goes back 100 years.

I concur that a sample size of 60 men is small, and I would support a larger, modernized study.

Progenex likes to tout their «superior science» yet cites studies like these with tiny samples sizes:

The sample size was small, and the researchers stated that the research findings indicate the need for a randomised control trial (RCT) as RCT's are widely recognised as the best study design.

Did you know that the studies that show phytic acid is an antinutrient were poorly designed and based on small sample sizes?

The data table shows, in the spreadsheet «exclusion6», study information and yield data of studies that were excluded because they did not meet selection criteria 6 (i.e. no information on an error term and sample size was available).

«The study methodology comprises a very small sample size (160 people) and using a 12 month recall questionnaire to ascertain consumptions patterns.

To be included, a study had to compare organic and conventional planting across similarly - sized areas, had to report on the sample size and error margins, and had to use organic methods that complied with the guidelines of certification organisations (such as the UK's Soil Association).

Maybe you should link these so called studies in your posts... I'm willing to be they have small sample sizes, use highly abnormal cases, or have agendas.

The sample size did not find any correlation between excess swaddling to SIDS, but the rate of SIDS occurrence is below the sample size of this study.

This study employed accepted research methodology, including a randomized control group and a sufficient sample size.

Calculation to determine the necessary number of resident participants used estimations of knowledge from previous studies of pediatric residents, which suggested a baseline knowledge about breastfeeding of 60 percentage points.8, 9,15 To detect an improvement in knowledge score of 20 percentage points with an estimated standard deviation of 20 points, a 2 - tailed α error of 0.05 and a power of 0.80, sample size was calculated at a minimum of 16 resident participants.

Sample size calculations were performed before study initiation.

Second, comparisons in milk waste data were studied using an unequal sample size, unequal variance t - test and the degrees of freedom for the test were calculated using the Welch - Satterthwait equation [21].

«The sample size was too small,» is a common complaint, no matter what the size of the study might be.

However, this population - based, case - control study was limited by a low participation rate of 50 % among eligible cases and 41 % among eligible controls and a small sample size of 185 SIDS cases.

Sample size calculations are provided in the study protocol (appendix 1 on bmj.com).

The strengths of the study include the ability to compare outcomes by the woman's planned place of birth at the start of care in labour, the high participation of midwifery units and trusts in England, the large sample size and statistical power to detect clinically important differences in adverse perinatal outcomes, the minimisation of selection bias through achievement of a high response rate and absence of self selection bias due to non-consent, the ability to compare groups that were similar in terms of identified clinical risk (according to current clinical guidelines) and to further increase the comparability of the groups by conducting an additional analysis restricted to women with no complicating conditions identified at the start of care in labour, and the ability to control for several important potential confounders.

Personally, I find it rather ironic that you're lecturing the blog author on the rigor of language, when, faced with the need to support the claims made by a documentary that has faced absolutely no real standards of intellectual rigor or merit (the kind of evidence you apparently find convincing), you have so far managed to produce a study with a sample size too small to conclude anything, a review paper that basically summarized well known connections between vaginal and amniotic flora and poor outcomes in labor and birth before attempting to rescue what would have been just another OB review article with a few attention grabbing sentences about long term health implications, and a review article published in a trash journal.

Further design details for the cohort study, including the eligibility criteria, sample size calculations, derivation of risk status, outcome measures, and ethical procedures, are reported elsewhere.13

Previous attempts to evaluate the Baby Friendly Initiative within an observational study design have often been limited by small sample size or reliance upon ecological measures of confounding factors.16, 17 The advantage of the Millennium Cohort Study is the availability of individual - level social and demographic information, as well as the circumstances of pregnancy and delivery, allowing adjustment for factors that in other studies may be associated with both policy intervention and infant feeding practices, via area or individual population differestudy design have often been limited by small sample size or reliance upon ecological measures of confounding factors.16, 17 The advantage of the Millennium Cohort Study is the availability of individual - level social and demographic information, as well as the circumstances of pregnancy and delivery, allowing adjustment for factors that in other studies may be associated with both policy intervention and infant feeding practices, via area or individual population differeStudy is the availability of individual - level social and demographic information, as well as the circumstances of pregnancy and delivery, allowing adjustment for factors that in other studies may be associated with both policy intervention and infant feeding practices, via area or individual population differences.

Setting 142 of 147 trusts providing home birth services, 53 of 56 freestanding midwifery units, 43 of 51 alongside midwifery units, and a random sample of 36 of 180 obstetric units, stratified by unit size and geographical region, in England, over varying periods of time within the study period 1 April 2008 to 30 April 2010.

The cohort study aimed to collect data in every NHS trust in England that provides home birth services, every free standing midwifery unit, every alongside midwifery unit, and a random sample of obstetric units, stratified by unit size and geographical region, over varying periods of time within the study period (1 April 2008 to 31 April 2010).

[23] Likewise, putting a stitch in the neck of the womb (a cervical suture) to prevent premature birth has not been shown to work in women carrying more than one baby due to the small sample sizes in the studies.

A prospective, controlled study of the effect of breast milk on infection among low birth weight infants was conducted in India in 1981.18 Although the sample size was small, 62 infants, the study design was a randomized block design in which feeding schedules for breast milk or formula were randomly allocated within groups of infants that were determined to be relatively homogeneous with respect to factors predisposing to infection.

One limitation of the study was sample size.

The authors concluded that the findings of this study provided the first national evaluation of a significant proportion of women choosing publicly funded home birth in Australia; however, the sample size did not have sufficient power to draw a conclusion about safety.

In the past, one of the main complaints about other studies has been the size of the sample which was said to be too small.

Sample size power calculations were based on all women, so all the studies were underpowered to show differences in the subgroup of women with multiples.

Studies had sample sizes ranging from 69 (Hoddinott 2012) to 1948 (Reeder 2014).

Sample size power calculations were based on all women, so the studies are underpowered to show differences in the subgroup of women with multiples.

In fact, one study that claimed to have found negative consequences of bed - sharing, such as children internalizing problems with prolonged bed - sharing, had a small sample size and limited information on why the children were sharing a bed with their mom according to Redbook.

It seems as if another study with a larger sample size is warranted — in addition to a study that has a control group in which parents refrain from giving their infants yogurt.

In terms of a research study itself, the sample size matters as does who is in the sample and how they were selected; random selection is desirable.

The prospective design of the IFPS II, the large sample size, as well as the extensive information on infant and maternal dietary practices make it useful for studying exclusive breastfeeding practices and testing hypotheses in a prospective manner [27].

One study found that bedroom heating, compared with no bedroom heating, increases SIDS risk (OR: 4.5), 235 and another study has also demonstrated a decreased risk of SIDS in a well - ventilated bedroom (windows and doors open)(OR: 0.4).296 In 1 study, the use of a fan seemed to reduce the risk of SIDS (adjusted OR: 0.28 [95 % CI: 0.10 — 0.77]-RRB-.297 However, because of the possibility of recall bias, the small sample size of controls using fans (n = 36), a lack of detail about the location and types of fans used, and the weak link to a mechanism, this study's results should be interpreted with caution.

log -LSB--RSB- indicates logarithm of the OR; weight, weighting that the study contributed to the meta - analysis (according to sample size); IV, fixed, 95 % CI: fixed - effect OR with 95 % CI.245

Dewey reviewed 11 observational studies with adequate sample sizes and with children's obesity data beyond three years of age.

That study you cite actually says that breastfeeding in a sample size of ONE child was ABRUPTLY ended at 15 months which is NOT typical for Neanderthals.