ReviewCureus2025
A Systematic Review on Power Estimation and Sample Size Calculation in Randomized Controlled Trials of Surgical Treatments for Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia.
Review 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are considered the gold standard for evaluating surgical interventions for benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). However, the validity and reliability of their findings depend critically on adequate sample size determination and power estimations. Inadequate or absent reporting of these parameters can undermine the interpretability of trial outcomes. This systematic review aimed to evaluate the prevalence, methodological rigor, and temporal trends of sample size calculation (SSC) and power reporting in RCTs of surgical interventions for BPH. We conducted a comprehensive systematic search of PubMed and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL). Eligible studies were RCTs that investigated surgical treatments for BPH and reported relevant clinical outcomes. Data extraction captured whether SSC and power estimation were reported, along with details of alpha levels, power values, year of publication, and intervention type. Subgroup analyses were performed according to intervention category, and associations were tested using Pearson's chi-square test with ORs and 95% CIs. Fifty-six RCTs were included. Of these, 30 trials (53.6%) reported performing SSC and power estimation, whereas 26 (46.4%) did not. Among those who reported SSC, most adopted a type I error threshold of 0.05 and a power value of at least 80%. Reporting practices demonstrated temporal improvement: SSC was documented in 33.3% of trials published between 1991 and 2000, 22.2% between 2001 and 2010, 64.0% between 2011 and 2020, and 57.9% between 2021 and 2025. Subgroup analysis revealed higher SSC reporting in novel minimally invasive surgical therapy (nMIST) trials than in non-MIST trials (62.5% vs. 31.3%, respectively). The association between intervention type and SSC reporting was statistically significant (χ²(1) = 4.49, p = 0.034), with the odds of SSC reporting being greater in nMIST-involved trials (OR 3.67, 95% CI 1.07-12.62). This review demonstrates gradual but meaningful improvements in SSC and power reporting in surgical RCTs for BPH over the past three decades, particularly in trials investigating minimally invasive techniques. Nonetheless, nearly half of the published trials continue to omit these critical methodological details, raising concerns about the robustness of their conclusions. Enhanced adherence to reporting standards, stricter editorial requirements, and improved researcher training are needed to ensure that future RCTs provide transparent and reproducible evidence to guide clinical practice.
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.