What was the rationale for accrual of 130 cases has not been explained here. Would be nice to have that explanation. When the study parameters (95% confidence interval, 60% vaccine efficacy, 1% baseline attack rate) were applied to the WHO calculator obtained from here, the sample size turned out to be 86000, and when 80% confidence interval, 60% vaccine efficacy, and 1% baseline rate among unvaccinated) was used to assess sample size, it turned out to be 21000; in any case, the study then would be underpowered unless the rationale of 130 case accrual is made.<br> Why was not the WHO sample size estimator used?

Lakens, D. (2021). Sample Size Justification. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/9d3yf

This is a page note. I can write overall comments about the pre-print here.

Tags can also be added below.

Power Analyses with SPSS, R, Stata, SAS

Althouse, A. D. (2020). Post Hoc Power: Not Empowering, Just Misleading. Journal of Surgical Research, 0(0). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2019.10.049

Maarten van Smeden on Twitter: “This is a kind reminder that most issues with data (e.g. measurement error, incomplete data, confounding, selection) do not disappear just because you have N = ginormous” / Twitter. (n.d.). Twitter. Retrieved July 19, 2020, from https://twitter.com/MaartenvSmeden/status/1283313496382373890