The University of Southampton
University of Southampton Institutional Repository

The quality of the reported sample size calculations in randomized controlled trials indexed in PubMed

The quality of the reported sample size calculations in randomized controlled trials indexed in PubMed
The quality of the reported sample size calculations in randomized controlled trials indexed in PubMed
Background There are limited data on the quality of reporting of information essential for replication of the calculation as well as the accuracy of the sample size calculation. We examine the current quality of reporting of the sample size calculation in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in PubMed and to examine the variation in reporting across study design, study characteristics, and journal impact factor. We also reviewed the targeted sample size reported in trial registries. Methods We reviewed and analyzed all RCTs published in December 2014 with journals indexed in PubMed. The 2014 Impact Factors for the journals were used as proxies for their quality. Results Of the 451 analyzed papers, 58.1% reported an a priori sample size calculation. Nearly all papers provided the level of significance (97.7%) and desired power (96.6%), and most of the papers reported the minimum clinically important effect size (73.3%). The median (inter-quartile range) of the percentage difference of the reported and calculated sample size calculation was 0.0% (IQR − 4.6%;3.0%). The accuracy of the reported sample size was better for studies published in journals that endorsed the CONSORT statement and journals with an impact factor. A total of 98 papers had provided targeted sample size on trial registries and about two–third of these papers (n = 62) reported sample size calculation, but only 25 (40.3%) had no discrepancy with the reported number in the trial registries. Conclusions The reporting of the sample size calculation in RCTs published in PubMed-indexed journals and trial registries were poor. The CONSORT statement should be more widely endorsed.
Crossover, Factorial, Protocol, Sample size, Trials
0953-6205
16-21
Lee, Paul H.
02620eab-ae7f-4a1c-bad1-8a50e7e48951
Tse, Andy C.Y.
e0d6b2be-a736-43ac-b03e-d2d58a56e114
Lee, Paul H.
02620eab-ae7f-4a1c-bad1-8a50e7e48951
Tse, Andy C.Y.
e0d6b2be-a736-43ac-b03e-d2d58a56e114

Lee, Paul H. and Tse, Andy C.Y. (2017) The quality of the reported sample size calculations in randomized controlled trials indexed in PubMed. European Journal of Internal Medicine, 40 (5), 16-21. (doi:10.1016/j.ejim.2016.10.008).

Record type: Article

Abstract

Background There are limited data on the quality of reporting of information essential for replication of the calculation as well as the accuracy of the sample size calculation. We examine the current quality of reporting of the sample size calculation in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in PubMed and to examine the variation in reporting across study design, study characteristics, and journal impact factor. We also reviewed the targeted sample size reported in trial registries. Methods We reviewed and analyzed all RCTs published in December 2014 with journals indexed in PubMed. The 2014 Impact Factors for the journals were used as proxies for their quality. Results Of the 451 analyzed papers, 58.1% reported an a priori sample size calculation. Nearly all papers provided the level of significance (97.7%) and desired power (96.6%), and most of the papers reported the minimum clinically important effect size (73.3%). The median (inter-quartile range) of the percentage difference of the reported and calculated sample size calculation was 0.0% (IQR − 4.6%;3.0%). The accuracy of the reported sample size was better for studies published in journals that endorsed the CONSORT statement and journals with an impact factor. A total of 98 papers had provided targeted sample size on trial registries and about two–third of these papers (n = 62) reported sample size calculation, but only 25 (40.3%) had no discrepancy with the reported number in the trial registries. Conclusions The reporting of the sample size calculation in RCTs published in PubMed-indexed journals and trial registries were poor. The CONSORT statement should be more widely endorsed.

This record has no associated files available for download.

More information

Accepted/In Press date: 10 October 2016
Published date: 1 May 2017
Additional Information: Publisher Copyright: © 2016 European Federation of Internal Medicine
Keywords: Crossover, Factorial, Protocol, Sample size, Trials

Identifiers

Local EPrints ID: 475153
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/475153
ISSN: 0953-6205
PURE UUID: 688af896-79b2-48a7-9598-52b1e7f74e3b
ORCID for Paul H. Lee: ORCID iD orcid.org/0000-0002-5729-6450

Catalogue record

Date deposited: 10 Mar 2023 17:45
Last modified: 17 Mar 2024 04:16

Export record

Altmetrics

Contributors

Author: Paul H. Lee ORCID iD
Author: Andy C.Y. Tse

Download statistics

Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.

View more statistics

Atom RSS 1.0 RSS 2.0

Contact ePrints Soton: eprints@soton.ac.uk

ePrints Soton supports OAI 2.0 with a base URL of http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/cgi/oai2

This repository has been built using EPrints software, developed at the University of Southampton, but available to everyone to use.

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue without changing your settings, we will assume that you are happy to receive cookies on the University of Southampton website.

×