ArticleCureus2025
A Decade of Change in Sample Size and Study Setting in Leading Anesthesiology Journals: A Cross-Sectional Meta-Research Study.
Article in Cureus, 2025. 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background Sample size and study setting are central to the reliability and generalizability of clinical research findings. Clarifying how these design characteristics have changed over time in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies is essential for aligning future anesthesiology research with evolving methodological standards. Methods We reviewed original research articles published in 2014 and 2024 in three leading anesthesiology journals: the British Journal of Anaesthesia (BJA), Anesthesiology, and Anesthesia & Analgesia (A&A). Eligible studies included RCTs and comparative cohort studies of adult patients reporting an effect estimate with a 95% confidence interval. Sample size and the number of participating institutions were extracted. Study setting was classified as single-center or multicenter for RCTs and as single-center, multicenter, or database study for cohort studies. Results Among 415 screened articles, 320 met the inclusion criteria (190 from 2014 and 130 from 2024). The overall median sample size increased significantly from 132.5 (interquartile range {IQR}, 60-720) in 2014 to 1,950.5 (IQR, 133-38,338) in 2024 (P < 0.001). Median sample size increased from 80 to 120 in RCTs (P = 0.013) and from 458 to 6,617 in cohort studies (P < 0.001). The proportion of single-center RCTs did not change significantly (P = 0.55), whereas cohort studies showed a significant decrease in single-center settings (from 70.8% to 46.9%) and an increase in database studies (from 15.1% to 34.7%) (P = 0.001). Conclusions Studies published in 2024 showed substantially larger sample sizes than those in 2014, with cohort studies showing a marked shift toward database studies. These trends may inform the design and planning of future high-impact research in anesthesiology.
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.