GPower vs. R for Sample Size Calculation: Which Tool Should You Use?

By Dr. Zubair Khalid, DVM, MS, PhD · 2026-08-27

Quick Answer

• Choose G*Power for quick, menu-driven sample size estimation with common statistical tests and minimal programming background.
• Choose R with the pwr package when you need reproducible analysis scripts, version control, and integration with broader data workflows.
• Both tools depend on accurate input parameters, and neither can compensate for poor effect size estimates or unclear experimental design.

Understanding Power Analysis in Biological Research

Power analysis addresses a fundamental question in experimental biology: how many biological replicates or samples are needed to detect an effect of a given size with reasonable confidence. The statistical power of a study is the probability that the test will reject the null hypothesis when the alternative hypothesis is true. In practical terms, power analysis helps researchers avoid two common failures: underpowered studies that miss real biological effects and wasteful studies that use more animals, cells, or reagents than necessary.

The core components of any power calculation include the effect size, the significance level (alpha), the desired power, and the sample size. When any three of these are specified, the fourth can be calculated. Most researchers fix alpha at 0.05 and power at 0.80, then estimate the effect size from prior literature or pilot data, and solve for the required sample size. The choice of statistical test determines the mathematical formula used, and this is where software tools become essential.

For biological researchers, the stakes of power analysis extend beyond statistical correctness. Institutional animal care and use committees, funding agencies, and journal reviewers increasingly expect explicit justification of sample sizes. The National Institutes of Health grant application process requires a rigorous experimental design that includes statistical considerations, and reviewers evaluate whether the proposed sample sizes are adequate to answer the scientific question. Similarly, reporting guidelines available through the EQUATOR Network emphasize transparent reporting of how sample sizes were determined, which supports reproducibility and scientific integrity.

The two tools most commonly used by life scientists are G*Power, a standalone graphical application, and R, a programming language with the pwr package for power calculations. Both are freely available and widely used in the biological sciences. The choice between them depends on the researcher's workflow, statistical sophistication, and need for reproducibility.

At a Glance

Core Principles of Sample Size Estimation

Statistical Foundations

Power analysis rests on the relationship between four quantities. The significance level, alpha, is the probability of rejecting the null hypothesis when it is true, representing the risk of a false positive. Power, often set at 0.80 or 0.90, is the probability of rejecting the null hypothesis when it is false, representing the ability to detect a true effect. The effect size quantifies the magnitude of the biological phenomenon under investigation, standardized so that it can be compared across studies and used in power calculations.

The sample size is the number of independent experimental units, not the number of technical replicates. This distinction is critical in biological research. If a researcher measures the same cell culture dish multiple times, those measurements are not independent and do not contribute the same statistical information as separate biological samples. Pseudoreplication, treating technical replicates as independent, inflates the apparent sample size and leads to overestimated power and unreliable conclusions.

Effect Size Estimation

The most challenging input in power analysis is the effect size. For continuous outcomes, the standardized mean difference (Cohen's d) is commonly used. For categorical outcomes, the effect size may be expressed as an odds ratio or a proportion difference. For analysis of variance designs, the effect size is often expressed as f or eta-squared.

Researchers can estimate effect sizes from several sources. Published studies in the same field provide effect sizes that can be extracted from reported means and standard deviations. Pilot experiments offer preliminary estimates, though these come with uncertainty due to small sample sizes. Meta-analyses provide pooled effect size estimates with greater precision. When no prior information exists, researchers may use conventions for small, medium, and large effects, though these benchmarks are field-specific and should be applied with caution.

The uncertainty in effect size estimates is a major limitation of power analysis. A power calculation is only as reliable as its inputs. Researchers should consider calculating power across a range of plausible effect sizes instead of relying on a single point estimate. This sensitivity analysis reveals how robust the sample size determination is to misspecification of the effect size.

Multiple Testing Considerations

Biological experiments often involve multiple outcome measures, multiple comparisons, or multiple groups. Each additional test increases the chance of false positives. Power analysis should account for multiple testing through corrections such as the Bonferroni method or false discovery rate control. These corrections typically increase the required sample size because they reduce the effective significance level for each individual test.

Researchers planning experiments with many endpoints face a practical decision. They can either adjust the significance level for the total number of tests, which may require impractically large sample sizes, or designate primary and secondary outcomes, applying the correction only to primary outcomes. This decision should be made during the planning phase and documented in the study protocol.

G*Power: Features and Workflow

Interface and Navigation

G*Power presents a straightforward graphical interface organized around the type of statistical test. The main window contains dropdown menus for test families, statistical tests, and type of power analysis. Test families include t-tests, F-tests, chi-square tests, z-tests, and exact tests. Within each family, specific tests are listed, such as means, correlations, proportions, and variances.

The type of power analysis determines what the software calculates. A priori analysis computes the required sample size given the effect size, alpha, and power. Post hoc analysis computes the achieved power given the sample size, effect size, and alpha. Compromise analysis allows the researcher to specify the ratio of alpha to beta error. Criterion analysis computes the critical value for a given alpha and sample size. Sensitivity analysis computes the detectable effect size given the sample size, alpha, and power.

For most experimental planning, a priori analysis is the appropriate choice. The researcher enters the effect size, alpha, power, and any design parameters such as the number of groups or the allocation ratio between groups. G*Power then calculates the required sample size and displays it along with the critical test statistic value.

Effect Size Calculators

G*Power includes built-in effect size calculators for many tests. For a t-test comparing two independent means, the researcher can enter the means and standard deviations of each group, and the software computes Cohen's d. For an ANOVA, the researcher can enter the means of each group and a common standard deviation, and the software computes the effect size f. These calculators reduce the risk of arithmetic errors when converting from raw data to standardized effect sizes.

The effect size calculators also accept input in alternative forms. For correlations, the researcher can enter the expected correlation coefficient directly. For proportions, the researcher can enter the proportions in each group. For odds ratios, the researcher can enter the odds ratio and the proportion in one group. This flexibility accommodates the varied ways effect sizes are reported in the biological literature.

Output and Documentation

G*Power displays the results in a text window that includes the input parameters, the calculated sample size, the critical value, and the actual power achieved. The output can be copied and pasted into a laboratory notebook or saved as a text file. For reproducible research, the researcher should record the version of G*Power used, the test selected, all input parameters, and the date of the calculation.

One limitation of G*Power is that the graphical interface does not lend itself to automated documentation. Each calculation is a separate manual operation. To document the analysis, the researcher must either save the output text or take a screenshot. This manual documentation process is acceptable for individual analyses but becomes cumbersome when many power calculations are needed or when the analysis must be repeated with updated parameters.

Strengths and Limitations

G*Power excels in accessibility. A researcher with minimal statistical training can perform a power analysis within minutes of opening the software. The menu-driven interface reduces the risk of syntax errors, and the built-in effect size calculators guide the user through parameter specification. The software is widely used in the biological sciences, so examples and tutorials are abundant.

The limitations of G*Power relate to its scope and reproducibility. The software covers common statistical tests but does not include every analysis a researcher might need. Complex designs, such as mixed-effects models or generalized linear models with random effects, may not be directly supported. For these analyses, the researcher must either use a different tool or approximate the power calculation with a simpler design. Additionally, the manual workflow makes it difficult to maintain a complete record of all power analyses performed for a study, especially when parameters are revised during the planning process.

R with pwr Package: Features and Workflow

The R Environment

R is a programming language and environment for statistical computing. It is freely available and runs on Windows, macOS, and Linux. R provides a comprehensive platform for data manipulation, statistical analysis, and visualization. For power analysis, the pwr package implements functions for a range of common statistical tests, including t-tests, ANOVA, correlation, chi-square tests, and proportion tests.

The R workflow differs fundamentally from G*Power. Instead of filling in dialog boxes, the researcher writes code that specifies the analysis. This code can be saved in a script file, modified, and rerun. The script serves as a complete record of the analysis, including all input parameters and the version of the analysis. This reproducibility is a major advantage for research projects that require transparent documentation.

Basic pwr Functions

The pwr package provides functions named according to the statistical test. For a two-sample t-test, the function is pwr.t.test. For a one-way ANOVA, the function is pwr.anova.test. For a correlation test, the function is pwr.r.test. For a chi-square test, the function is pwr.chisq.test. Each function takes the relevant parameters and returns the calculated quantity.

A typical pwr.t.test call specifies the effect size, significance level, power, and the type of t-test. The function returns the required sample size. If the researcher wants to calculate power for a given sample size, they omit the power argument and specify the sample size instead. This flexibility allows the same function to be used for different types of power analysis.

The pwr package also includes functions for proportion tests, with pwr.p.test for one-sample and pwr.2p.test for two-sample comparisons. The pwr.2p2n.test function accommodates unequal sample sizes between groups. For ANOVA, pwr.anova.test takes the number of groups, effect size, alpha, and power. These functions cover the most common power analysis scenarios in biological research.

Reproducibility and Integration

The script-based workflow of R provides reproducibility that is difficult to achieve with G*Power. A script file contains the complete analysis, including the version of R and the pwr package if the researcher records session information. The script can be shared with collaborators, included in supplementary materials, or deposited in a public repository. This transparency supports the principles of open science and facilitates review by statisticians and journal editors.

R also integrates power analysis with the broader data analysis workflow. The same environment used for power analysis can be used for data cleaning, exploratory analysis, statistical modeling, and figure generation. This integration eliminates the need to transfer data between different software tools and reduces the risk of errors during data handling.

The R environment supports version control through tools like Git, allowing researchers to track changes to their analysis scripts over time. This capability is valuable when power calculations are revised as new information becomes available. The complete history of the analysis is preserved, which supports the documentation requirements of rigorous research.

Strengths and Limitations

The primary strength of R is its flexibility and reproducibility. Researchers can write functions to automate power calculations across multiple scenarios, create loops to explore a range of effect sizes, and generate plots that visualize the relationship between sample size and power. This capability is particularly useful for sensitivity analyses and for planning sequential experiments.

The main limitation of R is the learning curve. Researchers who are not familiar with programming must invest time in learning basic R syntax before they can perform power analysis. The command-line interface is less intuitive than the graphical interface of G*Power, and errors in syntax can be frustrating for beginners. However, the pwr package documentation and numerous online tutorials reduce this barrier, and the investment in learning R pays dividends across the entire research workflow.

Choosing Between G*Power and R

Research Context and Workflow

The choice between G*Power and R depends on the research context and the researcher's workflow. For a quick calculation during a lab meeting or a teaching demonstration, G*Power is the more efficient choice. The graphical interface allows the researcher to explore different scenarios without writing code, and the results are immediately visible.

For a research project that requires extensive documentation, multiple power analyses, or integration with data analysis, R is the more appropriate choice. The script-based workflow ensures that every calculation is recorded and reproducible. The ability to automate power calculations across many scenarios is valuable for grant applications that require justification of sample sizes for multiple experiments.

Team Capabilities and Collaboration

The skills of the research team should inform the choice of tool. If all team members are comfortable with R, using R for power analysis maintains consistency across the project. If some team members are not familiar with R, G*Power may be more accessible for collaborative planning discussions. The tool should not become a barrier to statistical planning.

Collaboration with statisticians is another consideration. Many statisticians work in R and can provide more direct assistance if the power analysis is performed in the same environment. Sharing an R script with a statistician allows them to review the analysis and suggest modifications. Sharing G*Power output requires the statistician to either trust the reported results or redo the analysis in their own tool.

Documentation and Reporting Requirements

Funding agencies and journals increasingly expect detailed reporting of sample size determination. The National Institutes of Health data management and sharing policy emphasizes the importance of rigorous and reproducible research practices. An R script that documents the power analysis supports these expectations by providing a complete and transparent record.

Reporting guidelines available through the EQUATOR Network often include specific items about sample size determination. For example, guidelines for clinical trials and observational studies ask authors to explain how the sample size was determined. A reproducible power analysis script strengthens the response to these reporting items and facilitates review.

Practical Implementation Steps

Step 1: Define the Primary Outcome and Statistical Test

Before performing any power calculation, the researcher must clearly define the primary outcome measure and the statistical test that will be used to analyze it. This decision should be based on the scientific question, the type of data, and the study design. For a comparison of two groups with a continuous outcome, a two-sample t-test is appropriate. For a comparison of three or more groups, a one-way ANOVA is appropriate. For a relationship between two continuous variables, a correlation or regression analysis is appropriate.

The choice of statistical test determines which power analysis function or menu to use. Selecting the wrong test leads to incorrect sample size estimates. If the researcher is uncertain about the appropriate test, consultation with a statistician is recommended before proceeding with the power analysis.

Step 2: Estimate the Effect Size

The effect size should be estimated from the best available evidence. Published studies in the same field provide the most reliable estimates, especially if they used similar measurement methods and study populations. The researcher should extract the means and standard deviations from relevant publications and calculate the standardized effect size.

If no published data are available, a pilot study can provide preliminary estimates. The pilot study should use the same measurement methods and study population as the planned experiment. The sample size for the pilot study does not need to be large, but the estimates will have considerable uncertainty. This uncertainty should be acknowledged in the power analysis.

When effect size estimates are uncertain, the researcher should perform the power analysis across a range of plausible values. This sensitivity analysis shows how the required sample size changes with the effect size assumption. If the required sample size varies dramatically across the plausible range, the researcher should consider whether the study is feasible and whether additional preliminary data are needed.

Step 3: Specify Alpha and Power

The significance level is conventionally set at 0.05, representing a 5 percent risk of a false positive. The desired power is conventionally set at 0.80, representing an 80 percent chance of detecting a true effect. These conventions are widely used but should be considered in the context of the specific study.

For studies where false positives have serious consequences, a lower alpha may be appropriate. For studies where missing a true effect is particularly costly, a higher power may be warranted. The researcher should justify the chosen values in the study protocol and grant application.

Step 4: Perform the Power Calculation

With the effect size, alpha, and power specified, the researcher can perform the power calculation in either G*Power or R. In G*Power, the researcher selects the test family, the statistical test, and the type of power analysis, then enters the parameters and clicks calculate. In R, the researcher writes a script that calls the appropriate pwr function with the specified parameters.

The output provides the required sample size. The researcher should record the complete set of input parameters and the output for the study documentation. If the calculated sample size is not feasible due to resource constraints, the researcher should consider whether the effect size assumption is realistic, whether the study design can be modified, or whether the research question can be refined.

Step 5: Document and Report

The power analysis should be documented in the study protocol and reported in the final manuscript. The documentation should include the statistical test, the effect size estimate and its source, the alpha and power values, and the calculated sample size. For R analyses, the script should be saved and, when appropriate, shared as supplementary material.

The reporting should follow the relevant guidelines for the study type. The EQUATOR Network provides a searchable database of reporting guidelines for various study designs. These guidelines specify what information about sample size determination should be included in the manuscript.

Records and Measurements

Maintaining a Power Analysis Log

A power analysis log provides a structured record of all sample size calculations performed during the planning of a study. The log should include the date, the researcher who performed the analysis, the software and version used, the statistical test, all input parameters, the calculated sample size, and any notes about the rationale for parameter choices.

The log serves several purposes. It documents the decision-making process for grant applications and ethics reviews. It provides a reference for revising the analysis if parameters change. It supports the reproducibility of the research by preserving the complete history of the sample size determination.

Version Control for Analysis Scripts

For R-based power analysis, version control provides an additional layer of documentation. Tools like Git track changes to script files over time, allowing the researcher to review the evolution of the analysis. Each version of the script can be associated with a specific date and a note explaining the reason for the change.

Version control is particularly valuable when power calculations are revised in response to reviewer comments or new preliminary data. The complete history of the analysis is preserved, which supports transparency and facilitates the response to review.

Recording Software Versions

The version of the software used for power analysis should be recorded in the study documentation. G*Power and R are updated periodically, and the results of power calculations can change slightly between versions due to improvements in numerical methods. Recording the version allows the analysis to be reproduced exactly if needed.

In R, the sessionInfo function provides a complete record of the R version, the platform, and the versions of all loaded packages. Including this information in the analysis script or the study documentation ensures that the analysis can be reproduced in the future.

Common Failure Patterns

Using Technical Replicates as Biological Replicates

A frequent error in biological research is treating technical replicates as independent biological samples. Technical replicates are repeated measurements of the same biological sample, while biological replicates are independent samples from different organisms or cell culture preparations. Only biological replicates contribute independent information to the statistical analysis.

Power analysis should be based on the number of biological replicates. If the researcher enters the number of technical replicates into the power calculation, the resulting sample size will be too small to detect the effect with the specified power. The study will be underpowered, and the risk of missing a true biological effect will be higher than intended.

Unrealistic Effect Size Estimates

Power calculations are sensitive to the effect size assumption. If the researcher assumes a larger effect size than what actually exists, the calculated sample size will be too small. The study will be underpowered, and the probability of detecting the true effect will be lower than the specified power.

Effect size estimates from small pilot studies are particularly unreliable. The confidence intervals around effect sizes estimated from small samples are wide, and the true effect size may be substantially different from the estimate. Researchers should acknowledge this uncertainty and consider performing the power analysis across a range of effect sizes.

Ignoring Multiple Testing

Biological experiments often involve multiple outcome measures, and each additional test increases the risk of false positives. If the power analysis does not account for multiple testing, the calculated sample size will be too small to maintain the desired power after correction for multiple comparisons.

The researcher should identify the primary outcome measures before the power analysis and apply the appropriate correction for multiple testing. The correction should be applied to the significance level used in the power calculation, which will increase the required sample size.

Mismatch Between Analysis and Design

The power analysis must match the planned statistical analysis. If the researcher plans to use a nonparametric test but performs the power analysis for a parametric test, the calculated sample size may be inaccurate. Nonparametric tests generally require larger sample sizes to achieve the same power as their parametric counterparts.

Similarly, if the researcher plans to use a mixed-effects model to account for repeated measures or clustering, the power analysis should reflect this design. Simple power calculations that ignore the correlation structure of the data will underestimate the required sample size.

Limitations and Interpretation

Power Analysis Is an Estimate

Power analysis provides an estimate of the required sample size, not a guarantee. The calculation is based on assumptions about the effect size, the variability of the data, and the statistical test. If these assumptions are incorrect, the actual power of the study will differ from the intended power.

The researcher should treat the calculated sample size as a planning target instead of an exact requirement. Some flexibility in the final sample size is acceptable, especially if the researcher accounts for anticipated dropout or technical failures. The power analysis should be updated if the assumptions change substantially during the study.

Post Hoc Power Analysis Is Problematic

Post hoc power analysis, calculating the power of a study after the results are known, is generally not recommended. The observed effect size from the study is an estimate of the true effect size, and using it to calculate power is circular. The resulting power value does not provide useful information about the reliability of the study findings.

Instead of post hoc power analysis, researchers should report confidence intervals for the observed effect sizes. Confidence intervals convey the precision of the estimates and allow readers to assess the strength of the evidence. This approach is more informative than a post hoc power value.

Context-Specific Benchmarks

Conventional benchmarks for small, medium, and large effect sizes are not universally applicable. These benchmarks were developed in specific research contexts and may not reflect the effect sizes that are meaningful in a particular biological system. A small effect in one field may be a large effect in another.

The researcher should consider what effect size is biologically meaningful for the specific research question. This determination should be based on the scientific context, not on generic conventions. If the minimally important effect size is not known, the researcher should consult the literature and, when possible, domain experts.

Safety and Regulatory Context

Animal Research Oversight

For studies involving animals, the sample size must be justified to the institutional animal care and use committee. The committee reviews the proposed sample size to ensure that the minimum number of animals needed to answer the scientific question is used. A rigorous power analysis supports this justification by demonstrating that the sample size is neither excessive nor insufficient.

The National Institutes of Health grant application process requires a detailed description of the experimental design, including the statistical methods used to determine sample size. Reviewers evaluate whether the proposed sample sizes are adequate and whether the statistical analysis plan is appropriate. A well-documented power analysis strengthens the application.

Human Subjects Research

For studies involving human subjects, the sample size must be justified in the protocol submitted to the institutional review board. The board reviews the risk-benefit ratio, and an inadequate sample size can be considered unethical because the study may not produce meaningful results despite exposing participants to risk.

The power analysis should be described in the protocol in terms that are accessible to reviewers who may not be statisticians. The description should explain the primary outcome, the expected effect size and its source, the alpha and power values, and the calculated sample size. Any assumptions and their justifications should be clearly stated.

Data Management and Sharing

The National Institutes of Health data management and sharing policy requires researchers to plan for the management and sharing of scientific data generated from NIH-funded research. The data management and sharing plan should describe how the data will be preserved and shared, including the documentation that will accompany the data.

The power analysis documentation is part of the study metadata that supports data sharing. A reproducible power analysis script allows other researchers to understand how the sample size was determined and to assess the adequacy of the study design. This transparency supports the broader goals of data sharing and scientific reproducibility.

Professional Escalation Criteria

When to Consult a Statistician

Researchers should consult a statistician when the study design is complex, when the appropriate statistical test is unclear, or when the power analysis requires methods beyond the scope of standard software tools. Complex designs include those with multiple factors, repeated measures, hierarchical structure, or adaptive elements. These designs require specialized power analysis methods that may not be available in G*Power or the pwr package.

A statistician can also provide guidance on effect size estimation, especially when prior data are limited or when the effect size is difficult to define. The statistician can help the researcher conduct a sensitivity analysis and interpret the results in the context of the study design.

When to Escalate Within the Research Team

The principal investigator should be informed when the power analysis indicates that the required sample size is substantially larger than initially anticipated. The principal investigator can assess whether the study is feasible with available resources and whether the research question should be refined.

The institutional animal care and use committee or institutional review board should be consulted if the power analysis suggests that the proposed sample size is inadequate. The committee may require a revised protocol with a larger sample size or a revised research question with a more realistic effect size.

When to Revise the Study Design

If the power analysis reveals that the required sample size is not feasible, the researcher should consider revising the study design. Options include reducing the number of groups, using a more sensitive outcome measure, reducing measurement variability through standardized protocols, or using a paired or repeated measures design that increases statistical power.

These design changes should be made before data collection begins. Changing the design after data collection compromises the validity of the statistical analysis and may not be acceptable to reviewers. The revised design should be documented, and the power analysis should be repeated with the new parameters.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is G*Power free to use?

Yes, G*Power is freely available for download and use. The software runs on Windows and macOS and does not require a license. R and the pwr package are also freely available under open-source licenses. Both tools are accessible to researchers regardless of institutional resources.

Can I use G*Power for complex mixed-effects models?

G*Power does not directly support power analysis for mixed-effects models. For these designs, the researcher may need to use simulation-based approaches in R or consult a statistician. The pwr package also has limited support for complex designs, and simulation methods may be necessary for accurate power estimation.

How do I choose the effect size for my power analysis?

The effect size should be estimated from the best available evidence, including published studies, pilot data, or meta-analyses. When prior data are limited, the researcher should perform the power analysis across a range of plausible effect sizes. The choice of effect size should be justified in the study protocol and reported in the manuscript.

What is the difference between a priori and post hoc power analysis?

A priori power analysis is performed before data collection to determine the required sample size. Post hoc power analysis is performed after data collection using the observed effect size. A priori analysis is the appropriate method for study planning. Post hoc analysis is generally not recommended because it is circular and does not provide useful information about the reliability of the findings.

Do I need to account for multiple testing in my power analysis?

Yes, if the study involves multiple outcome measures or multiple comparisons, the power analysis should account for the correction for multiple testing. The correction reduces the effective significance level, which increases the required sample size. The researcher should identify primary outcomes and apply the correction appropriately.

Can I share my R power analysis script with collaborators?

Yes, sharing the R script is encouraged for transparency and reproducibility. The script should include the version of R and the pwr package used for the analysis. The script can be shared through version control platforms, included in supplementary materials, or deposited in a public repository.

How should I report the power analysis in my manuscript?

The manuscript should describe the statistical test, the effect size and its source, the alpha and power values, and the calculated sample size. The reporting should follow the relevant guidelines for the study type, which can be identified through the EQUATOR Network. For R analyses, the script can be included as supplementary material.

What should I do if the required sample size is not feasible?

If the required sample size is not feasible, the researcher should consider revising the study design. Options include reducing the number of groups, using a more sensitive outcome measure, or using a paired design. The revised design should be documented, and the power analysis should be repeated. Consultation with a statistician is recommended.

Using the Evidence

Related Diagnostic Guides

• Confocal vs Fluorescence Microscopy: Which Technique Should You Choose?
• Animal Biology
• Animal Research

References and Further Reading

• Research Methods Resources. National Library of Medicine.
• EQUATOR Network. EQUATOR Network.
• Core Practices. Committee on Publication Ethics.
• NIH Grants and Funding. National Institutes of Health.
• ORCID for Researchers. ORCID.
• Data Management and Sharing Policy. National Institutes of Health.
• Laboratory Biosafety Manual. World Health Organization.
• NCBI Literature Resources. National Center for Biotechnology Information.
• Analysis of Bond Strength of Bioceramic Sealer Following Irrigation with Chlorhexidine.. 2026.
• Rectal Colonization with Carbapenem-Resistant Enterobacterales in Intensive Care Unit Patients: Prevalence, Clinical Outcomes, and Risk of Subsequent Infection. 2026.
• Efficacy and safety of sini powder combined with Xiaoxianxiong decoction for adolescent depression with liver qi stagnation and phlegm-heat obstruction syndrome: a randomized controlled trial.. 2026.

This article is educational and does not replace validated laboratory procedures, institutional biosafety review, manufacturer instructions, or professional interpretation.