ReviewThe Journal of small animal practice2026
Small sample sizes in clinical trials: a pragmatic approach to clinical research in veterinary medicine.
Review in The Journal of small animal practice, 2026. 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.
- Mode-dependent differences in kinetic and selected temporospatial gait parameters in healthy cats walking on a pressure-sensitive treadmill: a pilot study.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2026Article
- Contents under pressure: vascular proliferation and gliosis in the brains of Cavalier King Charles Spaniels with syringomyelia.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2026Article
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
As evidence synthesis and guideline development efforts advance in veterinary medicine, the quality and quantity of data can be limiting factors. Aspiration and pragmatism must be balanced to ensure optimal data development and availability. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are ideally based on multiple large randomised controlled trials from a broad range of relevant populations, but cost, time and caseload can be substantial barriers. Small randomised controlled trials can also provide useful and actionable information. Data from numerous small but robustly designed and executed, comparable randomised controlled trials can support stronger conclusions, complementing larger randomised controlled trials or providing critical important knowledge when larger randomised controlled trials are not available. The value from these small trials is in the data, not the analysis, as individual analyses within these randomised controlled trials are usually underpowered to detect reasonable and clinically relevant endpoints. A desire for perfection can inhibit progress if randomised controlled trials are not performed, or if small but potentially useful data sets remain unpublished. We encourage the veterinary scientific community, including researchers, reviewers and editors, to strive for optimal study designs and sample sizes but to be open to publishing data from small trials that may provide little insight in isolation but contribute useful data for meta-analyses.
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.