ArticleIranian endodontic journal2014
Sample size calculation of clinical trials published in two leading endodontic journals.
Article in Iranian endodontic journal, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Reporting Sample Size Calculation in Randomized Clinical Trials Published in 4 Orthodontic Journals.Turkish journal of orthodontics · 2021Article
- Endodontic epidemiology.Iranian endodontic journal · 2014Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe purpose of this article was to evaluate the quality of sample size calculation reports in published clinical trials in Journal of Endodontics and International Endodontic Journal in years 2000-1 and 2009-10. MATERIALS AND
methodsArticles fulfilling the inclusion criteria were collected. The criteria were: publication year, research design, types of control group, reporting sample size calculation, the number of participants in each group, study outcome, amount of type I (α) and II (β) errors, method used for estimating prevalence or standard deviation, percentage of meeting the expected sample size and considering clinically importance level in sample size calculation. Data were extracted from all included articles. Descriptive analyses were conducted. Inferential statistical analyses were done using independent T-test and Chi-square test with the significance level set at 0.05.
resultsThere was a statistically significant increase in years between 2009 and 10 compared to 2000-1 in terms of reporting sample size calculation (P=0.002), reporting clinically importance level (P=0.003) and in samples size of clinical trials (P=0.01). But there was not any significant difference between two journals in terms of reporting sample size calculation, type of control group, frequency of various study designs and frequency of positive and negative clinical trials in different time periods (P>0.05).
conclusionSample size calculation in endodontic clinical trials improved significantly in 2009-10 when compared to 2000-1; however further improvements would be desirable.
Indexed as
Identifiers
24396377PMC3881303What 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.