SynthesisEuropean journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie2026
A systematic review of the relative differences in adverse events used for sample size calculations in orthopaedic trauma trials.
Synthesis in European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe purpose of this study was evaluate the relative differences in adverse event rates used for sample size calculations in orthopaedic trauma randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and to compare these to those actually observed.
methodsA systematic search was conducted using the Embase, Medline/PubMed, and Web of Science databases between 2015 and 2025 to identify orthopaedic trauma RCTs with a dichotomous adverse event as the primary outcome. The relative differences in adverse event rates used to calculate sample size were compared to those actually observed.
resultsThirty-five trials were included. The most common fractures types involved included the hip (37.1%, n = 13) and tibia (11.4%, n = 4). The most common adverse events were infection (25.7%, n = 9) and reoperations (14.3%, n = 5). The median relative difference in adverse events used for sample size calculations was 50.0% (range 21.9-90.0%), which was greater than the median observed relative difference of 20.5% (p = 0.01). Only 22.8% (n = 8) of the trials had an observed relative difference of 50.0% or greater. The adverse event rate used for sample size calculation in the control group was higher than the observed rate (27.5% vs. 13.6%, p = 0.01) while the adverse event rate used for sample size calculation in the intervention group was similar to the observed rate (8.2% vs. 12.3%, p = 0.35).
conclusionTrials used larger relative differences and higher control group event rates for sample size calculations than were actually observed and large effect sizes were infrequently observed. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 1, therapeutic.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42406143What 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.