ReviewBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2013
Sample size determinations in original research protocols for randomised clinical trials submitted to UK research ethics committees: review.
Review in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
31 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Efficacy of psychosocial interventions for Autism spectrum disorder: an umbrella review.Molecular psychiatry · 2022Pooled it
- Estimates of the mean difference in orthopaedic randomized trials: obligatory yet obscure.BMC medical research methodology · 2021Pooled it
- Using Bayesian statistics to estimate the likelihood a new trial will demonstrate the efficacy of a new treatment.BMC medical research methodology · 2017Pooled it
- Systematic review finds major deficiencies in sample size methodology and reporting for stepped-wedge cluster randomised trials.BMJ open · 2016Pooled it
- Virtual reality using games for improving physical functioning in older adults: a systematic review.Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation · 2014Pooled it
- The role of research ethics committees in addressing optimism in sample size calculations: a meta-epidemiological study.Research integrity and peer review · 2025Article
- Review
- SPIRIT 2025 explanation and elaboration: updated guideline for protocols of randomised trials.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2025Article
- Diagnostic value of nocturnal trend changes in a dynamic electrocardiogram for coronary heart disease.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2024Article
- Back to the basics: Guidance for designing good literature searches.Research in social & administrative pharmacy : RSAP · 2024Article
- artbin: Extended sample size for randomized trials with binary outcomes.The Stata journal · 2023Article
- Network meta-analysis from a pairwise meta-analysis design: to assess the comparative effectiveness of oral care interventions in preventing ventilator-associated pneumonia in critically ill patients.Clinical oral investigations · 2021Review
- Article
- [Influence of impact factor on reporting sample size calculations in publications on studies exemplified by AMD treatment : Cross-sectional investigation on the presence of sample size calculations in publications of RCTs on AMD treatment in journals with low and high impact factors].Der Ophthalmologe : Zeitschrift der Deutschen Ophthalmologischen Gesellschaft · 2020Article
- Article
- Synthesizing existing evidence to design future trials: survey of methodologists from European institutions.Trials · 2019Article
- Is Pelvic Plexus Block Superior to Periprostatic Nerve Block for Pain Control during Transrectal Ultrasonography-Guided Prostate Biopsy? A Double-Blind, Randomized Controlled Trial.Journal of clinical medicine · 2019Article
- Use of a random effects meta-analysis in the design and analysis of a new clinical trial.Statistics in medicine · 2018Article
- Cross-sectional analysis of UK research studies in 2015: results from a scoping project with the UK Health Research Authority.BMJ open · 2018Article
- Sample size estimation practices in research protocols submitted to Danish scientific ethics committees.Contemporary clinical trials communications · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo assess the completeness of reporting of sample size determinations in unpublished research protocols and to develop guidance for research ethics committees and for statisticians advising these committees.
designReview of original research protocols. STUDY SELECTION: Unpublished research protocols for phase IIb, III, and IV randomised clinical trials of investigational medicinal products submitted to research ethics committees in the United Kingdom during 1 January to 31 December 2009.
main outcome measuresCompleteness of reporting of the sample size determination, including the justification of design assumptions, and disagreement between reported and recalculated sample size.
results446 study protocols were reviewed. Of these, 190 (43%) justified the treatment effect and 213 (48%) justified the population variability or survival experience. Only 55 (12%) discussed the clinical importance of the treatment effect sought. Few protocols provided a reasoned explanation as to why the design assumptions were plausible for the planned study. Sensitivity analyses investigating how the sample size changed under different design assumptions were lacking; six (1%) protocols included a re-estimation of the sample size in the study design. Overall, 188 (42%) protocols reported all of the information to accurately recalculate the sample size; the assumed withdrawal or dropout rate was not given in 177 (40%) studies. Only 134 of the 446 (30%) sample size calculations could be accurately reproduced. Study size tended to be over-estimated rather than under-estimated. Studies with non-commercial sponsors justified the design assumptions used in the calculation more often than studies with commercial sponsors but less often reported all the components needed to reproduce the sample size calculation. Sample sizes for studies with non-commercial sponsors were less often reproduced.
conclusionsMost research protocols did not contain sufficient information to allow the sample size to be reproduced or the plausibility of the design assumptions to be assessed. Greater transparency in the reporting of the determination of the sample size and more focus on study design during the ethical review process would allow deficiencies to be resolved early, before the trial begins. Guidance for research ethics committees and statisticians advising these committees is needed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.