Calculation of sample size for stroke trials assessing functional outcome: comparison of binary and ordinal approaches

Background Many acute stroke trials have given neutral results. Sub-optimal statistical analyses may be failing to detect efficacy. Methods which take account of the ordinal nature of functional outcome data are more efficient. We compare sample size calculations for dichotomous and ordinal outcomes for use in stroke trials. Methods Data from stroke trials studying the effects of interventions known to positively or negatively alter functional outcome – Rankin Scale and Barthel Index – were assessed. Sample size was calculated using comparisons of proportions, means, medians (according to Payne), and ordinal data (according to Whitehead). The sample sizes gained from each method were compared using Friedman 2 way ANOVA. Results Fifty-five comparisons (54 173 patients) of active vs. control treatment were assessed. Estimated sample sizes differed significantly depending on the method of calculation (Po00001). The ordering of the methods showed that the ordinal method of Whitehead and comparison of means produced significantly lower sample sizes than the other methods. The ordinal data method on average reduced sample size by 28% (inter-quartile range 14–53%) compared with the comparison of proportions; however, a 22% increase in sample size was seen with the ordinal method for trials assessing thrombolysis. The comparison of medians method of Payne gave the largest sample sizes. Conclusions Choosing an ordinal rather than binary method of analysis allows most trials to be, on average, smaller by approximately 28% for a given statistical power. Smaller trial sample sizes may help by reducing time to completion, complexity, and financial expense. However, ordinal methods may not be optimal for interventions which both improve functional outcome

Effort-reward imbalance at work and the co-occurrence of lifestyle risk factors: cross-sectional survey in a sample of 36,127 public sector employees

Background In occupational life, a mismatch between high expenditure of effort and receiving few rewards may promote the co-occurrence of lifestyle risk factors, however, there is insufficient evidence to support or refute this hypothesis. The aim of this study is to examine the extent to which the dimensions of the Effort-Reward Imbalance (ERI) model – effort, rewards and ERI – are associated with the co-occurrence of lifestyle risk factors. Methods Based on data from the Finnish Public Sector Study, cross-sectional analyses were performed for 28,894 women and 7233 men. ERI was conceptualized as a ratio of effort and rewards. To control for individual differences in response styles, such as a personal disposition to answer negatively to questionnaires, occupational and organizational -level ecological ERI scores were constructed in addition to individual-level ERI scores. Risk factors included current smoking, heavy drinking, body mass index ≥25 kg/m2, and physical inactivity. Multinomial logistic regression models were used to estimate the likelihood of having one risk factor, two risk factors, and three or four risk factors. The associations between ERI and single risk factors were explored using binary logistic regression models. Results After adjustment for age, socioeconomic position, marital status, and type of job contract, women and men with high ecological ERI were 40% more likely to have simultaneously ≥3 lifestyle risk factors (vs. 0 risk factors) compared with their counterparts with low ERI. When examined separately, both low ecological effort and low ecological rewards were also associated with an elevated prevalence of risk factor co-occurrence. The results obtained with the individual-level scores were in the same direction. The associations of ecological ERI with single risk factors were generally less marked than the associations with the co-occurrence of risk factors. Conclusion This study suggests that a high ratio of occupational efforts relative to rewards may be associated with an elevated risk of having multiple lifestyle risk factors. However, an unexpected association between low effort and a higher likelihood of risk factor co-occurrence as well as the absence of data on overcommitment (and thereby a lack of full test of the ERI model) warrant caution in regard to the extent to which the entire ERI model is supported by our evidence.