Skip to main content
OrthoVellum
Knowledge Hub

Study

  • Topics
  • MCQs
  • ISAWE
  • Operative Surgery
  • Flashcards

Company

  • About Us
  • Editorial Policy
  • Contact
  • FAQ
  • Blog

Legal

  • Terms of Service
  • Privacy Policy
  • Cookie Policy
  • Medical Disclaimer
  • Copyright & DMCA
  • Refund Policy

Support

  • Help Center
  • Accessibility
  • Report an Issue
OrthoVellum

© 2026 OrthoVellum. For educational purposes only.

Not affiliated with the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons.

Statistical Power and Sample Size

Back to Topics
Contents
0%

Statistical Power and Sample Size

Comprehensive guide to statistical power, sample size calculation, and ensuring adequate study design for detecting clinically meaningful differences.

complete
Updated: 2025-12-24
High Yield Overview

STATISTICAL POWER AND SAMPLE SIZE

Study Planning | Adequate Sampling | Effect Detection

80%Conventional Power Target
5%Type I Error (Alpha)
20%Type II Error (Beta)
MCIDMinimum Clinically Important Difference

Power and Sample Size Relationships

High Power (80-90%)
PatternAdequate sample to detect true effect
TreatmentWell-designed study
Underpowered (under 80%)
PatternToo small sample, high Type II error risk
TreatmentMay miss real effect
Overpowered (over 95%)
PatternExcessively large sample
TreatmentDetects trivial differences

Critical Must-Knows

  • Power: Probability of detecting a true effect (1 minus Beta). Conventional target is 80 percent.
  • Sample Size Calculation Requires: Effect size (MCID), Alpha (usually 0.05), Power (usually 0.80), Variability (SD)
  • Effect Size: The magnitude of difference you want to detect - must be clinically meaningful (MCID), not just statistically significant
  • Underpowered Studies: Risk Type II error (false negative) - failing to detect real treatment effect
  • Factors Increasing Sample Size: Smaller effect size, lower power, higher variability, lower alpha

Examiner's Pearls

  • "
    Power = 80% means 20% chance of Type II error (missing a true effect)
  • "
    MCID (Minimal Clinically Important Difference) defines what effect size matters to patients
  • "
    Larger sample size increases power but also increases cost and time
  • "
    Pilot studies help estimate variability (SD) for sample size calculations

Critical Power Concepts

What is Power?

Power = 1 minus Beta. Probability of correctly rejecting null hypothesis when alternative is true. Power = 80% means 80% chance of detecting real effect if it exists.

Sample Size Determinants

Four key inputs: (1) Alpha (Type I error, usually 0.05), (2) Power (1-Beta, usually 0.80), (3) Effect Size (MCID), (4) Variability (Standard Deviation).

Underpowered Studies

Risk: Type II error (false negative). Study may fail to detect real treatment benefit. Common in orthopaedic trials with small sample sizes.

Clinical vs Statistical Significance

Statistical Significance: p less than 0.05. Clinical Significance: Difference exceeds MCID. Large studies detect trivial differences; small studies miss important ones.

Mnemonic

APESSample Size Calculation Inputs

A
Alpha
Type I error rate (usually 0.05 or 5%)
P
Power
1 minus Beta (usually 0.80 or 80%)
E
Effect Size
MCID - clinically meaningful difference
S
Standard Deviation
Variability of outcome measure

Memory Hook:APES calculate sample size - Alpha, Power, Effect, SD are the four essentials!

Mnemonic

SHAPEFactors that Increase Required Sample Size

S
Smaller effect size
Detecting small differences needs more patients
H
Higher power
90% vs 80% power requires more patients
A
Alpha reduction
0.01 vs 0.05 needs larger sample
P
Population variability
Higher SD increases sample needed
E
Expected dropout
Must inflate for anticipated loss to follow-up

Memory Hook:SHAPE your sample size - these five factors determine how many participants you need!

Overview/Introduction

What is Power?

Definition: Statistical power is the probability that a study will detect an effect when there truly is an effect to detect.

Formula: Power = 1 minus Beta (Type II error rate)

Interpretation:

  • Power = 80%: 80% chance of detecting true effect, 20% chance of missing it (Type II error)
  • Power = 50%: Coin flip - as likely to miss effect as to find it (underpowered)
  • Power = 95%: 95% chance of detecting true effect, but requires much larger sample

Power Levels and Interpretation

PowerMeaningAdequacySample Size
Greater than 90%Very high chance of detecting true effectExcellent but may be excessiveVery large sample needed
80-90%High chance of detecting true effectConventional and adequateModerate sample size
50-80%Moderate chance, meaningful risk of missing effectUnderpowered - riskySmaller sample
Under 50%More likely to miss effect than find itSeverely underpoweredVery small sample

Understanding power is essential for designing adequately powered studies.

Principles of Power Analysis

Core Principles

Relationship Between Power and Sample Size:

  • Larger sample size increases power
  • Doubling sample size does NOT double power (diminishing returns)
  • Power increases steeply initially, then plateaus

Trade-offs in Study Design:

  • Higher power requires larger sample (more cost, time)
  • Smaller effect size (more clinically conservative) requires larger sample
  • Lower alpha (more statistically conservative) requires larger sample

Key Relationships:

  • Power ∝ Sample Size
  • Power ∝ Effect Size
  • Power ∝ Alpha
  • Power inversely proportional to Variability (SD)

Understanding these principles allows rational study design decisions.

Sample Size Calculation

Four Essential Inputs

Every sample size calculation requires four inputs:

Alpha: Type I Error Rate

Definition: Probability of falsely rejecting null hypothesis (false positive).

Conventional Choice: Alpha = 0.05 (5%)

Meaning: Willing to accept 5% chance of finding difference when none exists.

Trade-off: Lower alpha (e.g., 0.01) reduces false positives but requires larger sample size.

Bonferroni Correction: When testing multiple outcomes, divide alpha by number of tests to maintain overall Type I error rate.

Understanding alpha is critical for interpreting p-values and planning studies.

Power: 1 minus Type II Error

Definition: Probability of detecting true effect.

Conventional Choice: Power = 0.80 (80%)

Meaning: 80% chance of finding effect if it exists, 20% risk of missing it.

Higher Power Options:

  • Power = 0.90 (90%): More conservative, larger sample needed
  • Used when consequences of missing effect are serious

Lower Power Risk:

  • Power under 0.50: Study likely to fail even if effect is real

Setting adequate power prevents underpowered studies that waste resources.

Effect Size: Clinically Meaningful Difference

Definition: The magnitude of difference you want to detect.

MCID (Minimal Clinically Important Difference): Smallest change that patients perceive as beneficial.

Examples:

  • WOMAC Score: MCID approximately 10 points (on 100-point scale)
  • VAS Pain: MCID approximately 15-20 mm (on 100-mm scale)
  • SF-36 PCS: MCID approximately 5 points

Key Principle: Effect size should be clinically meaningful, not just statistically detectable.

Trade-off: Smaller effect sizes require much larger sample sizes to detect.

Choosing appropriate MCID ensures clinical relevance of study findings.

Variability: Standard Deviation

Definition: Spread of outcome values in population.

How to Estimate:

  • Pilot study
  • Published literature on same outcome measure
  • Prior studies in similar population

Impact: Higher variability requires larger sample size to detect same effect.

Example: If WOMAC scores vary widely (SD = 20), need more patients than if scores are consistent (SD = 10).

Accurate SD estimation is crucial for reliable sample size calculations.

Performing Sample Size Calculation

Sample Size Formula (Continuous Outcome, Two Groups)

For comparing means between two groups:

n = 2 × (Zα + Zβ)² × SD² / MCID²

Where:

  • n = sample size per group
  • Zα = Z-score for alpha (1.96 for alpha = 0.05 two-tailed)
  • Zβ = Z-score for beta (0.84 for power = 0.80)
  • SD = standard deviation
  • MCID = effect size (minimal clinically important difference)

Worked Example

Question: How many patients needed per group to detect 10-point improvement in WOMAC score?

Given:

  • MCID = 10 points
  • SD = 20 points (from literature)
  • Alpha = 0.05 (Zα = 1.96)
  • Power = 0.80 (Zβ = 0.84)

Calculation:

  • n = 2 × (1.96 + 0.84)² × 20² / 10²
  • n = 2 × 7.84 × 400 / 100
  • n = 2 × 31.36
  • n = 63 patients per group

Accounting for Dropout:

  • If expecting 15% dropout: n = 63 / 0.85 = 74 patients per group
  • Total enrollment: 148 patients

Understanding sample size calculation ensures adequately powered studies.

Types of Power Analysis

A Priori vs Post Hoc Power Analysis

Types of Power Analysis

TypeWhen PerformedPurposeValidity
A Priori (Prospective)Before study beginsCalculate required sample sizeValid and recommended
Post Hoc (Retrospective)After study completedCalculate achieved powerControversial - often misleading
Sensitivity AnalysisDuring planningAssess power across range of assumptionsUseful for uncertainty

A Priori Power Analysis (Recommended):

  • Calculate sample size BEFORE enrolling patients
  • Uses estimated effect size and SD from literature or pilot
  • Ensures study designed with adequate power

Post Hoc Power Analysis (Problematic):

  • Calculating power AFTER study complete using observed data
  • Often done to explain non-significant results
  • Mathematically redundant - p-value and post hoc power are directly related

Power Analysis by Study Design

Sample Size Approaches by Design

Study DesignPower Analysis MethodKey ConsiderationsComplexity
Parallel RCTStandard two-group comparisonEffect size, SD, alpha, powerBasic
Crossover RCTPaired comparisonWithin-subject SD (smaller), carryoverModerate
Cluster RCTAccount for clusteringICC, cluster size, number of clustersComplex
Non-inferiorityOne-sided, margin definedNon-inferiority margin, assay sensitivityComplex

Post Hoc Power Warning

Do NOT use post hoc power analysis to justify non-significant findings. Post hoc power is directly derived from the p-value - if p is not significant, post hoc power will be low by definition. Instead, examine confidence intervals for clinical relevance.

Clinical Application

Underpowered Studies in Orthopaedics

Common Problem: Many orthopaedic RCTs are underpowered. Small sample sizes fail to detect clinically meaningful differences. Results are inconclusive, not negative.

MCID vs Statistical Significance

Clinical Relevance: A statistically significant finding (p less than 0.05) may not be clinically important. Always check if difference exceeds MCID.

Pilot Studies

Purpose: Estimate variability (SD) and feasibility before full trial. Helps refine sample size calculation. Do NOT use pilot for hypothesis testing.

Multicenter Trials

Solution: When single center cannot recruit adequate sample, multicenter collaboration achieves power. AOANJRR and international registries provide large samples.

Software and Calculation Tools

Common Power Analysis Software

Sample Size Calculation Tools

SoftwareCostFeaturesBest For
G*PowerFreeWide range of tests, user-friendlyAcademic researchers, most designs
PS (Power and Sample Size)FreeSimple interface, basic designsQuick calculations, beginners
nQueryCommercialComprehensive, regulatory acceptedIndustry trials, complex designs
PASSCommercialExtensive documentation, FDA submissionsRegulatory submissions

Online Calculators:

  • ClinCalc sample size calculator (free online)
  • OpenEpi power calculation (epidemiological studies)
  • Sealed Envelope (clinical trial tools)

Manual Calculation Reference

StatisticFormula ComponentValue (Common)
Zα (two-tailed, α=0.05)Z-score for alpha1.96
Zα (one-tailed, α=0.05)Z-score for alpha1.645
Zβ (power=0.80)Z-score for beta0.84
Zβ (power=0.90)Z-score for beta1.28

Simulation-Based Power Analysis

When Used:

  • Complex study designs (adaptive, cluster)
  • Non-standard distributions
  • Multiple endpoints with correlations

Approach:

  • Simulate thousands of hypothetical datasets
  • Analyze each using planned analysis method
  • Count proportion achieving significance = estimated power

MCID Sources for Orthopaedics

Use validated MCID values from published literature:

  • Oxford Knee Score: MCID 5 points
  • Harris Hip Score: MCID 10 points
  • DASH: MCID 10-15 points
  • VAS Pain (100mm): MCID 15-20mm
  • SF-36 PCS: MCID 5 points

If no MCID exists, consider using 0.5 × SD (medium effect) or conduct anchor-based MCID study.

Addressing Underpowered Studies

Strategies to Increase Power

Methods to Address Low Power

StrategyApproachAdvantagesDisadvantages
Increase sample sizeEnroll more participantsDirect power increaseMore cost, time, resources
Multicenter collaborationPool recruitment across sitesAchieves larger sampleHeterogeneity, logistics complexity
Reduce variabilityStricter inclusion criteria, standardized protocolsIncreases precisionReduces generalizability
Use more sensitive outcomeChoose outcome with lower SDMore precise measurementMay not be clinically preferred

When Power Cannot Be Achieved

  • Rare conditions: May need registry-based or multi-national studies
  • Ethical constraints: Cannot enroll more for safety reasons
  • Resource limitations: Accept lower power with pre-specified disclosure

Alternative Approaches:

  • Bayesian analysis (can provide evidence even with small samples)
  • Meta-analysis (combine with existing studies)
  • Confidence interval interpretation (focus on precision)

Adaptive Trial Designs

Sample Size Re-estimation:

  • Pre-planned interim analysis
  • Adjust sample size based on observed variability
  • Maintains study validity if done properly

Group Sequential Designs:

  • Multiple pre-planned analyses during trial
  • Can stop early for efficacy or futility
  • Adjusts alpha spending to maintain overall Type I error

Interim Analysis Caution

Interim analyses for sample size re-estimation must be pre-specified in the protocol and use appropriate alpha spending functions (e.g., O'Brien-Fleming, Pocock). Unplanned interim analyses inflate Type I error and can introduce bias.

Meta-Analysis as Solution

When individual studies are underpowered:

  • Combine effect estimates from multiple studies
  • Pooled analysis has greater power than any individual study
  • Requires systematic search and quality assessment
  • Heterogeneity (I²) must be evaluated

Common Pitfalls and Errors

Errors in Sample Size Calculation

Common Pitfalls in Power Analysis

PitfallProblemConsequenceSolution
Underestimating dropoutSample shrinks below powered sizeUnderpowered final analysisInflate by 15-25% for attrition
Unrealistic effect sizeMCID too large or optimisticStudy underpowered for true effectUse conservative, validated MCID
Wrong SD estimateVariability higher than expectedLower power than calculatedUse upper bound of SD estimate
Multiple comparisons ignoredMany outcomes without correctionInflated Type I errorAdjust alpha (Bonferroni) or define primary outcome

Interpretation Errors

Common Mistakes:

  • Concluding treatments are "equivalent" from underpowered negative study
  • Using post hoc power to justify non-significant results
  • Ignoring confidence intervals when assessing clinical relevance
  • Confusing statistical significance with clinical importance

Design-Specific Pitfalls

Cluster RCTs:

  • Ignoring intraclass correlation (ICC) - severely underestimates sample
  • Need many clusters, not just many individuals per cluster
  • ICC of 0.05 can double or triple required sample

Non-Inferiority Trials:

  • Margin too wide - proves non-inferiority but allows clinically inferior treatment
  • Margin too narrow - requires impossibly large sample
  • Per-protocol analysis may bias toward non-inferiority

Post Hoc Power Fallacy

Never use post hoc power analysis! After a study, post hoc power is directly calculated from the p-value:

  • If p = 0.05, post hoc power ≈ 50%
  • If p = 0.80, post hoc power ≈ 10%

This is mathematically circular and provides no additional information. Instead, examine confidence intervals and effect size estimates for clinical relevance.

Checklist for Sample Size Reporting

  • Alpha level specified
  • Power level specified (usually 80%)
  • Effect size justified (MCID with reference)
  • SD source cited (literature or pilot)
  • Statistical test specified
  • Dropout/attrition adjustment included
  • Software/formula identified

Evidence Base

Power and Sample Size in Orthopaedic Trials

3
Lochner HV, Bhandari M, Tornetta P • JBJS Am (2001)
Key Findings:
  • Review of 215 RCTs in orthopaedic journals found 60% did not report sample size calculation
  • Of studies reporting power, 40% were underpowered (power less than 0.80)
  • Lack of power reporting makes it difficult to interpret negative results
  • Recommendations: Always report sample size calculation and achieved power
Clinical Implication: Many orthopaedic trials are underpowered, leading to inconclusive results that waste resources and delay progress.
Limitation: Study from 2001 - reporting has improved somewhat with CONSORT adoption, but underpowering remains common.

MCID for Common Orthopaedic Outcome Measures

3
Copay AG, Subach BR, Glassman SD, et al • Spine J (2007)
Key Findings:
  • Systematic review of MCID values for common outcome measures
  • WOMAC: MCID approximately 10-15% of scale (10-15 points on 100-point scale)
  • SF-36: MCID approximately 5 points for physical component
  • VAS Pain: MCID approximately 15-20 mm on 100-mm scale
Clinical Implication: Use validated MCID values when calculating sample size to ensure clinical relevance of findings.
Limitation: MCID varies by population and condition - use disease-specific values when available.

CONSORT Statement on Sample Size

1
Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D • BMJ (2010)
Key Findings:
  • CONSORT Item 7a: How sample size was determined
  • CONSORT Item 7b: When applicable, explanation of interim analyses and stopping guidelines
  • Sample size justification should include effect size, power, alpha, and SD
  • Facilitates assessment of study adequacy and interpretation of results
Clinical Implication: CONSORT guidelines improve transparency of RCT reporting including sample size justification.
Limitation: Compliance with CONSORT varies across journals and trials.

Exam Viva Scenarios

Practice these scenarios to excel in your viva examination

VIVA SCENARIOStandard

Scenario 1: Sample Size Calculation

EXAMINER

"You are planning an RCT to compare two surgical approaches for rotator cuff repair. What information do you need to calculate the required sample size?"

EXCEPTIONAL ANSWER
To calculate sample size, I need four key pieces of information. First, **Alpha** - the Type I error rate, conventionally set at 0.05, meaning I accept a 5 percent chance of false positive result. Second, **Power** or 1 minus Beta - the probability of detecting a true effect if it exists, conventionally 0.80 or 80 percent, meaning 20 percent risk of Type II error or missing a real difference. Third, **Effect Size** - the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) that I want to detect. For rotator cuff outcomes, this might be 10 points on the ASES score or Constant score. This should be based on what patients consider meaningful improvement, not just statistical detectability. Fourth, **Variability** - the standard deviation of the outcome measure in the population. I would estimate this from published literature on the same outcome measure or from a pilot study. Once I have these four inputs, I can use the formula n equals 2 times the quantity Zα plus Zβ squared times SD squared divided by MCID squared to calculate the sample size per group. I would also inflate this by approximately 15 to 20 percent to account for anticipated loss to follow-up.
KEY POINTS TO SCORE
Four inputs: Alpha, Power, Effect Size (MCID), SD
Conventional values: Alpha = 0.05, Power = 0.80
MCID must be clinically meaningful, not just statistically detectable
Inflate for dropout (typically 15-20%)
COMMON TRAPS
✗Not mentioning all four required inputs
✗Confusing effect size with p-value or alpha
✗Not inflating for dropout
✗Not explaining what MCID means and why it matters
LIKELY FOLLOW-UPS
"What happens if your study is underpowered?"
"How would you estimate the standard deviation if no prior data exists?"
"What is the trade-off between power and sample size?"
VIVA SCENARIOChallenging

Scenario 2: Interpreting Underpowered Study

EXAMINER

"You read an RCT comparing two implants for THA. The study found no significant difference (p = 0.15) with 40 patients per group. The power calculation shows the study had 35 percent power. How do you interpret this result?"

EXCEPTIONAL ANSWER
This is a classic underpowered study, and the negative result is inconclusive, not definitive. With power of only 35 percent, this study had a 65 percent chance of missing a true difference even if one exists - essentially worse than a coin flip. The p-value of 0.15 suggests a trend toward difference but insufficient sample to achieve statistical significance. I cannot conclude that the implants are equivalent - only that this study was too small to detect a difference. This is a Type II error risk situation. To properly interpret this, I would examine the confidence intervals around the effect estimate. If the confidence interval is wide and includes both no difference and clinically important differences, the study is inconclusive. If I wanted to definitively answer this question, I would need to calculate the sample size required for adequate power - typically 80 percent - using the observed effect size and variability from this pilot data. This might require 200 to 300 patients per group. Alternatively, a meta-analysis combining this study with other similar trials could increase power. The key message is: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence when a study is underpowered.
KEY POINTS TO SCORE
Power of 35% means 65% risk of Type II error (missing true difference)
Negative result from underpowered study is inconclusive, not definitive
Examine confidence intervals for clinical relevance
Need adequate power (80%) to draw conclusions about equivalence or difference
COMMON TRAPS
✗Concluding implants are equivalent based on underpowered negative study
✗Not explaining Type II error risk
✗Not mentioning confidence intervals
✗Not suggesting solutions (larger study or meta-analysis)
LIKELY FOLLOW-UPS
"What is the difference between statistical equivalence and lack of statistical difference?"
"How would you design a study to prove two treatments are equivalent (non-inferiority trial)?"
"What is the relationship between confidence intervals and power?"

MCQ Practice Points

Power Definition

Q: What is statistical power? A: The probability of detecting a true effect when it exists, calculated as 1 minus Beta (Type II error rate). Power = 80% means 80% chance of finding real difference if present, 20% risk of missing it.

Sample Size Determinants

Q: Which factor does NOT increase required sample size? A: Higher alpha (e.g., 0.10 vs 0.05) actually decreases required sample size. Factors that increase sample size: smaller effect size, higher power, higher variability (SD), lower alpha.

MCID Importance

Q: Why is MCID important for sample size calculation? A: MCID defines the clinically meaningful effect size - the smallest difference that matters to patients. Using MCID ensures study is powered to detect differences that are clinically relevant, not just statistically significant. Without MCID, large studies may detect trivial differences.

Management Algorithm

📊 Management Algorithm
Management algorithm for Statistical Power Sample Size
Click to expand
Management algorithm for Statistical Power Sample SizeCredit: OrthoVellum

STATISTICAL POWER AND SAMPLE SIZE

High-Yield Exam Summary

Core Concepts

  • •Power = 1 minus Beta = Probability of detecting true effect
  • •Conventional power = 80% (20% risk of Type II error)
  • •Sample size needs 4 inputs: Alpha, Power, Effect Size (MCID), SD
  • •Underpowered study = High risk of missing real effect (Type II error)

Sample Size Calculation Inputs

  • •Alpha = Type I error (usually 0.05) - false positive rate
  • •Power = 1 minus Beta (usually 0.80) - true positive rate
  • •Effect Size = MCID (clinically meaningful difference)
  • •SD = Variability (from literature or pilot study)
  • •Inflate by 15-20% for anticipated dropout

Factors Increasing Sample Size

  • •Smaller effect size (harder to detect)
  • •Higher power (90% vs 80%)
  • •Lower alpha (0.01 vs 0.05)
  • •Higher variability (larger SD)
  • •Expected dropout or loss to follow-up

Interpreting Power

  • •Power greater than 90% = Excellent, may be excessive
  • •Power 80-90% = Adequate and conventional
  • •Power 50-80% = Underpowered, risky
  • •Power under 50% = Severely underpowered, likely to fail
  • •Negative result from underpowered study = Inconclusive

Clinical Application

  • •MCID defines clinical relevance, not just statistical significance
  • •Many orthopaedic RCTs are underpowered (power under 80%)
  • •Pilot studies estimate SD and feasibility, NOT for hypothesis testing
  • •Absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence (underpowered studies)
  • •Wide confidence intervals indicate insufficient precision
Quick Stats
Reading Time65 min
Related Topics

Articular Cartilage Structure and Function

Bending Moment Distribution in Fracture Fixation

Biceps Femoris Short Head Anatomy

Biofilm Formation in Orthopaedic Infections