PEDIATRICS Vol. 65 No. 5 May 1980, pp. 1043-1045
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow P3Rs: Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when P3Rs are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow E-mail this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My File Cabinet
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via CrossRef
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Berwick, D. M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Berwick, D. M.

Experimental Power: The Other Side of the Coin

Donald M. Berwick MD1

1 Center for the Analysis of Health Practices, Harvard School of Public Health and Children's Hospital Medical Center, Boston

The article by Mitchell et al,1 in this issue of Pediatrics is laudable in many respects, including the rigor of its methodology. In a paragraph on page 974, the reader will find one particularly valuable nugget. There the authors write, "...clinically important differences... were unlikely to have been missed. Specifically, for GCI (general cognitive index) a difference of 15 points would have been found 91% of the time, and a difference of 20 points 99% of the time, while a difference of 10 points would be found 64% of the time."

That is pure gold. Not only do the authors tell us that their study failed to find a certain effect (a difference in GCI between cases and comparisands), but they then tell us how likely it was, given the size and design of their study, that they missed an effect which we might care about.