For patients with multivessel coronary artery disease, the treatment of choice f

Question

For patients with multivessel coronary artery disease, the treatment of choice for many is revascularization by means of coronary artery bypass grafting surgery. However, as a result of the aging population and increased prevalence of coexisting conditions, clinical outcomes in such patients have been worse than the outcomes in patients without so many problems. There is evidence that remote ischemic preconditioning can improve outcomes in this aging population with coexisting conditions. As part of a large (well over 100,000 patients), multicenter study, serum creatinine levels (mg/dL) will be measured at 12 months in preconditioned and control patients. With a two sided significance level of 5%, the study was designed to measure an effect of preconditioning with 90% power. However, because of the critical nature of this treatment option, your supervisors want to decrease the significance level to 2%. What is your study’s new power to identify a treatment effect? Is the power of the study still appropriate to measure a preconditioning effect?

Explanation / Answer

yes the power of the study is appropriate to measure the preconditioning effect.Decreasing alpha level from 5% to 2 % will increase the chance of rejecting null hypothesis.

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse F
• Subjects

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.