ArticleBMC medical research methodology2025
An 11-Year (2012-2022) review of Journal of Athletic Training publication study designs and sample sizes.
Article in BMC medical research methodology, 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
backgroundResearch findings must be representative by creating a sample of individuals, ensuring the results can be generalized and applicable to a larger population, which has historically been guided by a power analysis. However, the varied research design methods require a unique approach to sampling and a formula for recruitment and size. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to analyze historical data from published manuscripts in the Journal of Athletic Training (JAT) relative to study design and sample sizes. A secondary purpose was to further explore metrics for survey-based research.
methodsThis descriptive analysis explored 1267 publications in each issue of the JAT from January 2012 (Volume 47) to December 2022 (Volume 57). We extracted publications from the JAT website. Every article was entered into a spreadsheet (year of publication, publication title) and data specific to the study design and sample size were used for analysis. For studies that were coded as survey-based research, access, response, and completion rates were completed, and topic area and use of a power analysis were extracted. Data were analyzed using measures of central tendency (mean, median, range).
resultsOf the 1267 published studies, the most frequent design was cross-sectional (394, 31.1%). In total, 1080 publications (85.2%) were not survey-based, with a median sample size of 34 participants, while 187 publications (14.8%) were survey-based, with a median sample size of 429. Among those surveys, most were cross-sectional (n = 151/187, 80.8%), with 80.7% (n = 151/187) reporting the number initially recruited and 50.8% (n = 95/187) reporting the number of surveys started. The survey publications reported recruiting an average of 4453 potential participants (median = 2500; min = 101, max = 48752), with 985 participants starting the study (median = 816, min = 57, max = 7067), and a final sample size of 819 (median = 429; min = 17, max = 13002). The grand mean access rate was 22.1%, the grand mean response rate was 18.4%, and the grand mean completion rate was 83.1%.
conclusionResearchers and reviewers can use these trends to guide authorship and review processes for athletic training research. However, sampling strategies should be consistent with the research question, which may lead to deviations from these reported trends.
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.