Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41261014›Full record

ReviewThe Journal of small animal practice2026

Small sample sizes in clinical trials: a pragmatic approach to clinical research in veterinary medicine.

J S Weese, F Allerton, K Scahill, T M Sørensen, L R Jessen

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

J S WeeseDepartment of Pathobiology, Ontario Veterinary College, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada.ORCID 0000-0003-1896-1937
F AllertonWillows Veterinary Centre & Referral Service, Shirley, UK.
K ScahillDepartment of Veterinary Clinical Sciences, Center for Veterinary Guidelines, University of Copenhagen, Frederiksberg C, Denmark.
T M SørensenDepartment of Veterinary Clinical Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Frederiksberg C, Denmark.
L R JessenDepartment of Veterinary Clinical Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Frederiksberg C, Denmark.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Clinical Trials, Veterinary as TopicRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicResearch DesignVeterinary MedicineAnimalsSample Size

Identifiers

PMID41261014
PMCPMC13050588

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.