Are sample sizes clear and justified in RCTs published in dental journals?

Sample size calculations are advocated by the CONSORT group to justify sample sizes in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The aim of this study was primarily to evaluate the reporting of sample size calculations, to establish the accuracy of these calculations in dental RCTs and to explore potenti...

Descripción completa

Guardado en:

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales:	Despina Koletsi, Padhraig S Fleming, Jadbinder Seehra, Pantelis G Bagos, Nikolaos Pandis
Formato:	article
Lenguaje:	EN
Publicado:	Public Library of Science (PLoS) 2014
Materias:	Medicine R Science Q
Acceso en línea:	https://doaj.org/article/dae66475a7674abb9cd915572307ae74
Etiquetas:	Agregar Etiqueta Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!

id	oai:doaj.org-article:dae66475a7674abb9cd915572307ae74
record_format	dspace
spelling	oai:doaj.org-article:dae66475a7674abb9cd915572307ae742021-11-18T08:36:54ZAre sample sizes clear and justified in RCTs published in dental journals?1932-620310.1371/journal.pone.0085949https://doaj.org/article/dae66475a7674abb9cd915572307ae742014-01-01T00:00:00Zhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/pmid/24465806/?tool=EBIhttps://doaj.org/toc/1932-6203Sample size calculations are advocated by the CONSORT group to justify sample sizes in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The aim of this study was primarily to evaluate the reporting of sample size calculations, to establish the accuracy of these calculations in dental RCTs and to explore potential predictors associated with adequate reporting. Electronic searching was undertaken in eight leading specific and general dental journals. Replication of sample size calculations was undertaken where possible. Assumed variances or odds for control and intervention groups were also compared against those observed. The relationship between parameters including journal type, number of authors, trial design, involvement of methodologist, single-/multi-center study and region and year of publication, and the accuracy of sample size reporting was assessed using univariable and multivariable logistic regression. Of 413 RCTs identified, sufficient information to allow replication of sample size calculations was provided in only 121 studies (29.3%). Recalculations demonstrated an overall median overestimation of sample size of 15.2% after provisions for losses to follow-up. There was evidence that journal, methodologist involvement (OR = 1.97, CI: 1.10, 3.53), multi-center settings (OR = 1.86, CI: 1.01, 3.43) and time since publication (OR = 1.24, CI: 1.12, 1.38) were significant predictors of adequate description of sample size assumptions. Among journals JCP had the highest odds of adequately reporting sufficient data to permit sample size recalculation, followed by AJODO and JDR, with 61% (OR = 0.39, CI: 0.19, 0.80) and 66% (OR = 0.34, CI: 0.15, 0.75) lower odds, respectively. Both assumed variances and odds were found to underestimate the observed values. Presentation of sample size calculations in the dental literature is suboptimal; incorrect assumptions may have a bearing on the power of RCTs.Despina KoletsiPadhraig S FlemingJadbinder SeehraPantelis G BagosNikolaos PandisPublic Library of Science (PLoS)articleMedicineRScienceQENPLoS ONE, Vol 9, Iss 1, p e85949 (2014)
institution	DOAJ
collection	DOAJ
language	EN
topic	Medicine R Science Q
spellingShingle	Medicine R Science Q Despina Koletsi Padhraig S Fleming Jadbinder Seehra Pantelis G Bagos Nikolaos Pandis Are sample sizes clear and justified in RCTs published in dental journals?
description	Sample size calculations are advocated by the CONSORT group to justify sample sizes in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The aim of this study was primarily to evaluate the reporting of sample size calculations, to establish the accuracy of these calculations in dental RCTs and to explore potential predictors associated with adequate reporting. Electronic searching was undertaken in eight leading specific and general dental journals. Replication of sample size calculations was undertaken where possible. Assumed variances or odds for control and intervention groups were also compared against those observed. The relationship between parameters including journal type, number of authors, trial design, involvement of methodologist, single-/multi-center study and region and year of publication, and the accuracy of sample size reporting was assessed using univariable and multivariable logistic regression. Of 413 RCTs identified, sufficient information to allow replication of sample size calculations was provided in only 121 studies (29.3%). Recalculations demonstrated an overall median overestimation of sample size of 15.2% after provisions for losses to follow-up. There was evidence that journal, methodologist involvement (OR = 1.97, CI: 1.10, 3.53), multi-center settings (OR = 1.86, CI: 1.01, 3.43) and time since publication (OR = 1.24, CI: 1.12, 1.38) were significant predictors of adequate description of sample size assumptions. Among journals JCP had the highest odds of adequately reporting sufficient data to permit sample size recalculation, followed by AJODO and JDR, with 61% (OR = 0.39, CI: 0.19, 0.80) and 66% (OR = 0.34, CI: 0.15, 0.75) lower odds, respectively. Both assumed variances and odds were found to underestimate the observed values. Presentation of sample size calculations in the dental literature is suboptimal; incorrect assumptions may have a bearing on the power of RCTs.
format	article
author	Despina Koletsi Padhraig S Fleming Jadbinder Seehra Pantelis G Bagos Nikolaos Pandis
author_facet	Despina Koletsi Padhraig S Fleming Jadbinder Seehra Pantelis G Bagos Nikolaos Pandis
author_sort	Despina Koletsi
title	Are sample sizes clear and justified in RCTs published in dental journals?
title_short	Are sample sizes clear and justified in RCTs published in dental journals?
title_full	Are sample sizes clear and justified in RCTs published in dental journals?
title_fullStr	Are sample sizes clear and justified in RCTs published in dental journals?
title_full_unstemmed	Are sample sizes clear and justified in RCTs published in dental journals?
title_sort	are sample sizes clear and justified in rcts published in dental journals?
publisher	Public Library of Science (PLoS)
publishDate	2014
url	https://doaj.org/article/dae66475a7674abb9cd915572307ae74
work_keys_str_mv	AT despinakoletsi aresamplesizesclearandjustifiedinrctspublishedindentaljournals AT padhraigsfleming aresamplesizesclearandjustifiedinrctspublishedindentaljournals AT jadbinderseehra aresamplesizesclearandjustifiedinrctspublishedindentaljournals AT pantelisgbagos aresamplesizesclearandjustifiedinrctspublishedindentaljournals AT nikolaospandis aresamplesizesclearandjustifiedinrctspublishedindentaljournals
_version_	1718421592550146048

Are sample sizes clear and justified in RCTs published in dental journals?

Ejemplares similares