ReviewJournal of clinical and experimental dentistry2026
Sample size calculation practices in original research articles of the Journal of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics (2021-2025).
Review in Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry, 2026. 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Sample size calculation is essential for methodological rigor and statistical validity in dental research, yet deficiencies in its reporting and coherence with statistical analysis remain frequent. This study aimed to evaluate the frequency and methodological coherence of sample size calculation practices in original research articles published in the Journal of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics (JCDE). Material and Methods: A methodological review was conducted, including original research articles published between January 2021 and December 2025. Extracted variables comprised study design, sample size reporting, characteristics of the sample size calculation, statistical tests applied, and coherence between the calculation model and the final analysis. Study designs were grouped into in vitro, clinical, and observational categories. Descriptive statistics were summarized using absolute and relative frequencies. Bivariate associations were assessed using the chi-square test, and multivariable logistic regression was used to identify factors independently associated with methodological coherence. Results: Of 631 eligible articles, 176 (27.9%) reported a sample size calculation. Complete and methodologically coherent reporting was identified in only 9 studies (1.43%). Methodological coherence differed significantly by study design in bivariate analyses (p < 0.05). In the adjusted model, clinical and observational studies showed higher odds of coherent sample size calculation compared with in vitro studies. Conclusions: Sample size calculations in JCDE are infrequently reported and often methodologically incoherent. Study design appears to be a key determinant of coherence, underscoring the need for improved integration of statistical planning and reporting standards.
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.