Cross-sectoral differences in the drivers of innovation: evidence from the Irish Community Innovation Survey

Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to analyse differences in the drivers of firm innovation performance across sectors. The literature often makes the assumption that firms in different sectors differ in their propensity to innovate but not in the drivers of innovation. The authors empirically assess whether this assumption is accurate through a series of econometric estimations and tests. Design/methodology/approach: The data used are derived from the Irish Community Innovation Survey 2004-2006. A series of multivariate probit models are estimated and the resulting coefficients are tested for parameter stability across sectors using likelihood ratio tests. Findings: The results indicate that there is a strong degree of heterogeneity in the drivers of innovation across sectors. The determinants of process, organisational, new to firm and new to market innovation varies across sectors suggesting that the pooling of sectors in an innovation production function may lead to biased inferences. Research limitations/implications: The implications of the results are that innovation policies targeted at stimulating innovation need to be tailored to particular industries. One size fits all policies would seem inappropriate given the large degree of heterogeneity observed across the drivers of innovation in different sectors. Originality/value: The value of this paper is that it provides an empirical test as to whether it is suitable to group sectoral data when estimating innovation production functions. Most papers simply include sectoral dummies, implying that only the propensity to innovate differs across sectors and that the slope of the coefficient estimates are in fact consistent across sectors.

Treatment trials for neonatal seizures: the effect of design on sample size

Neonatal seizures are common in the neonatal intensive care unit. Clinicians treat these seizures with several anti-epileptic drugs (AEDs) to reduce seizures in a neonate. Current AEDs exhibit sub-optimal efficacy and several randomized control trials (RCT) of novel AEDs are planned. The aim of this study was to measure the influence of trial design on the required sample size of a RCT. We used seizure time courses from 41 term neonates with hypoxic ischaemic encephalopathy to build seizure treatment trial simulations. We used five outcome measures, three AED protocols, eight treatment delays from seizure onset (Td) and four levels of trial AED efficacy to simulate different RCTs. We performed power calculations for each RCT design and analysed the resultant sample size. We also assessed the rate of false positives, or placebo effect, in typical uncontrolled studies. We found that the false positive rate ranged from 5 to 85% of patients depending on RCT design. For controlled trials, the choice of outcome measure had the largest effect on sample size with median differences of 30.7 fold (IQR: 13.7–40.0) across a range of AED protocols, Td and trial AED efficacy (p<0.001). RCTs that compared the trial AED with positive controls required sample sizes with a median fold increase of 3.2 (IQR: 1.9–11.9; p<0.001). Delays in AED administration from seizure onset also increased the required sample size 2.1 fold (IQR: 1.7–2.9; p<0.001). Subgroup analysis showed that RCTs in neonates treated with hypothermia required a median fold increase in sample size of 2.6 (IQR: 2.4–3.0) compared to trials in normothermic neonates (p<0.001). These results show that RCT design has a profound influence on the required sample size. Trials that use a control group, appropriate outcome measure, and control for differences in Td between groups in analysis will be valid and minimise sample size.