Skip Navigation

American Journal of Epidemiology 2005 161(2):111-112; doi:10.1093/aje/kwi015
This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Related articles in Am. J. Epidemiol.
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (5)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Prentice, R.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Prentice, R.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Copyright © 2005 by the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health

SPECIAL ARTICLE

Invited Commentary: Ethics and Sample Size—Another View

Ross Prentice 

From the Division of Public Health Sciences, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA.

Received for publication August 5, 2004; accepted for publication September 15, 2004.

The first 10% of the full text of this article appears below.

In their article entitled, "Ethics and Sample Size," Bacchetti et al. (1) provide a spirited justification, based on ethical considerations, for the conduct of clinical trials that may have little potential to provide powerful tests of therapeutic or public health hypotheses. This perspective is somewhat surprising given the longstanding encouragement by clinical trialists and bioethicists in favor of large trials (2–4). Heretofore, the defenders of smaller trials have essentially argued only that small, underpowered trials need not be unethical if well conducted given their contribution to intervention effect estimation and their potential contribution to meta-analyses (5. . . [Full Text of this Article]


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?

Related articles in Am. J. Epidemiol.:

Ethics and Sample Size
Peter Bacchetti, Leslie E. Wolf, Mark R. Segal, and Charles E. McCulloch
Am. J. Epidemiol. 2005 161: 105-110. [Abstract] [FREE Full Text]  



This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Poult. Sci.Home page
B. Ask, E. H. van der Waaij, and S. C. Bishop
Modeling Variability in Immunocompetence and Immunoresponsiveness
Poult. Sci., September 1, 2008; 87(9): 1748 - 1759.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Am J EpidemiolHome page
P. A. H. van Noord and I. van der Tweel
RE: "USE OF A BAYESIAN APPROACH TO DECIDE WHEN TO STOP A THERAPEUTIC TRIAL: THE CASE OF A CHEMOPROPHYLAXIS TRIAL IN HUMAN IMMUNODEFICIENCY VIRUS INFECTION"
Am. J. Epidemiol., November 15, 2005; 162(10): 1033 - 1035.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Am J EpidemiolHome page
S. D. Halpern, J. H. T. Karlawish, and J. A. Berlin
RE: "ETHICS AND SAMPLE SIZE"
Am. J. Epidemiol., July 15, 2005; 162(2): 195 - 196.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Am J EpidemiolHome page
P. Bacchetti, L. E. Wolf, M. R. Segal, and C. E. McCulloch
THE AUTHORS REPLY
Am. J. Epidemiol., July 15, 2005; 162(2): 196 - 196.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Am J EpidemiolHome page
P. Bacchetti, L. E. Wolf, M. R. Segal, and C. E. McCulloch
Bacchetti et al. Respond to "Ethics and Sample Size--Another View"
Am. J. Epidemiol., January 15, 2005; 161(2): 113 - 113.
[Full Text] [PDF]