ArticleTurkish journal of orthodontics2021
Reporting Sample Size Calculation in Randomized Clinical Trials Published in 4 Orthodontic Journals.
Article in Turkish journal of orthodontics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
objectiveThe purpose of this study was to describe sample size calculations in randomized clinical trials (RCTs) published in four orthodontic journals.
methodsThis cross-sectional study evaluated 142 RCTs published from 2015 to 2019 in the four journals with the highest impact factor in orthodontics according to SCIMAGO 2018 ranking. Two trained and experienced orthodontists assessed if the RCTs evaluated reported their sample size calculations, and if they adequately described the criteria for the calculations, including the level of significance, test power, precision or effect size (clinically relevant difference), and expected variability. The reporting of sample size calculation was considered adequate when the above four criteria were described.
resultsWe identified 120 publications (84.5%) reporting the sample size calculation, but only 70 (58.3%) fully described the above parameters. Inadequate calculation included failure to report the confidence level (ranging from 0% to 12.9%), test power (ranging from 0% to 20%), effect size (ranging from 0% to 22.5%) and expected variability (ranging from 22.6% to 80%). According to the journal, some parameters of sample size calculation were more frequently reported.
conclusionRCTs published in four leading orthodontic journals frequently do not report the parameters used for sample size calculations.
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.