ReviewBMC medical research methodology2022
A descriptive study of samples sizes used in agreement studies published in the PubMed repository.
Review in BMC medical research methodology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 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
16 citing papers in PubMed.
- Rationale and design of the AutoHealth study: prospective clinical validation of continuous multimodal in-vehicle health monitoring in real-world mobility.European heart journal. Digital health · 2026Article
- Type 1 diabetes-specific distress among adults with type 1 diabetes in Japan.Journal of diabetes investigation · 2026Article
- Concordance Between Patient-Reported and Clinically Documented Symptoms in Acute Myeloid Leukemia.Oncology nursing forum · 2026Article
- The Applicability of AWaRe-Based Antibiotic Quality Indicators to Assess the Appropriateness of Antibiotic Prescribing in Primary Healthcare in South Africa: A Multicentre Point Prevalence Study and Implications for the Future.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- The Guided Oral-Intake and Swallowing Test (GOST): Validation of a Novel Bedside Composite Score for Dysphagia Against Instrumental Assessment.Dysphagia · 2026Article
- The Accuracy of Temperament Ratings in Late Childhood and Early Adolescence and their Relation to Behavior Problems: An Analysis of Parent, Child, and Teacher Agreement.Child psychiatry and human development · 2026Article
- Development and assessment of anImaging science in dentistry · 2026Article
- Agreement between bioelectrical impedance analysis and equation-derived estimates of appendicular skeletal muscle in acutely hospitalized multiethnic older patients.Aging clinical and experimental research · 2026Article
- Statistical Analysis and Reporting of Cardiac Output Method Comparison Studies (COMPARE) Statement.Anesthesiology · 2025Review
- Agreement Between the Gross Motor Ability Estimator-3 and the Reduced Gross Motor Function Measure-66 Based on Artificial Intelligence.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Achieving Inter-Rater Agreement and Inter-Rater Reliability to Assess Fidelity of an Occupation-Based Coaching (OBC) Clinical Trial Intervention.The British journal of occupational therapy · 2025Article
- Asymptotic Confidence Interval, Sample Size Formulas and Comparison Test for the Agreement Intra-Class Correlation Coefficient in Inter-Rater Reliability Studies.Statistics in medicine · 2024Article
- Reliability of the assessment of the clinical dementia rating scale from the analysis of medical records in comparison with the reference method.Alzheimer's research & therapy · 2024Observational
- Peripheral Refraction Using Ancillary Retinoscope Component (P-ARC).Translational vision science & technology · 2024Article
- A community-based intervention study involving family gardens with aromatic herbs on changes in dietary and urinary sodium.BMC nutrition · 2024Article
- A Comparative Study of Transcranial Color-Coded Doppler (TCCD) and Transcranial Doppler (TCD) Ultrasonography Techniques in Assessing the Intracranial Cerebral Arteries Haemodynamics.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionA sample size justification is required for all studies and should give the minimum number of subjects to be recruited for the study to achieve its primary objective. The aim of this review is to describe sample sizes from agreement studies with continuous or categorical endpoints and different methods of assessing agreement, and to determine whether sample size justification was provided.
methodsData were gathered from the PubMed repository with a time interval of 28
resultsWe observed a wide range of sample sizes. Forty-six studies (56%) used a continuous outcome measure, 28 (34%) used categorical and eight (10%) used both. Median sample sizes were 50 (IQR 25 to 100) for continuous endpoints and 119 (IQR 50 to 271) for categorical endpoints. Bland-Altman limits of agreement (median sample size 65; IQR 35 to 124) were the most common method of statistical analysis for continuous variables and Kappa coefficients for categorical variables (median sample size 71; IQR 50 to 233). Of the 82 studies assessed, only 27 (33%) gave justification for their sample size.
conclusionsDespite the importance of a sample size justification, we found that two-thirds of agreement studies did not provide one. We recommend that all agreement studies provide rationale for their sample size even if they do not include a formal sample size calculation.
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.