ArticleResearch integrity and peer review2025
The role of research ethics committees in addressing optimism in sample size calculations: a meta-epidemiological study.
Article in Research integrity and peer review, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSample size calculations are critical in clinical trial design, yet hypothesised effect sizes are often overly optimistic, leading to underpowered studies. Research ethics committees (RECs) assess trial protocols, including sample size justification, but their role in mitigating optimism bias in sample size calculations is not well studied.
methodsWe descriptively analysed 50 clinical trial protocols approved by a Dutch REC (2015-2018) with available primary outcome results. We examined REC comments on sample size calculations, protocol modifications during ethics review and amendments, and discrepancies between target and observed effect sizes. For comparability, effect sizes were standardised.
resultsNine (18%) trials received REC comments on sample size calculations, mainly addressing calculation errors (n = 5), missing parameters (n = 2), or other methodological considerations (n = 3), with only three comments (6%) requesting effect size justification. Seven (14%) trials modified their sample size calculation during ethics review, mostly in response to REC comments, and 10 (20%) trials made modifications in amendments. In total, 40 (80%) trials overestimated their target effect size. Across all trials, the target effect size was overestimated by a median of 0.22 [IQR: 0.03 - 0.41]. Changes during ethics review led to less overestimation for only one trial, which reflected the correction of a calculation error rather than a reassessment of assumptions.
conclusionsOptimism in sample size calculations is common, but the influence of REC feedback on reducing overestimation appears limited. As this was a small, descriptive study from a single Dutch REC in 2015-2018, findings may not generalise to other settings or more recent practice. Future research should validate these findings and may help identify characteristics associated with overestimation, supporting RECs in recognising trials at risk of being underpowered.
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.