Are Sample Sizes Clear and Justified in RCTs Published in Dental Journals?

Abstract

Sample size calculations are advocated by the CONSORT group to justify sample sizes in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The aim of this study was primarily to evaluate the reporting of sample size calculations, to establish the accuracy of these calculations in dental RCTs and to explore potential predictors associated with adequate reporting. Electronic searching was undertaken in eight leading specific and general dental journals. Replication of sample size calculations was undertaken where possible. Assumed variances or odds for control and intervention groups were also compared against those observed. The relationship between parameters including journal type, number of authors, trial design, involvement of methodologist, single-/multi-center study and region and year of publication, and the accuracy of sample size reporting was assessed using univariable and multivariable logistic regression. Of 413 RCTs identified, sufficient information to allow replication of sample size calculations was provided in only 121 studies (29.3%). Recalculations demonstrated an overall median overestimation of sample size of 15.2% after provisions for losses to follow-up. There was evidence that journal, methodologist involvement (OR = 1.97, CI: 1.10, 3.53), multi-center settings (OR = 1.86, CI: 1.01, 3.43) and time since publication (OR = 1.24, CI: 1.12, 1.38) were significant predictors of adequate description of sample size assumptions. Among journals JCP had the highest odds of adequately reporting sufficient data to permit sample size recalculation, followed by AJODO and JDR, with 61% (OR = 0.39, CI: 0.19, 0.80) and 66% (OR = 0.34, CI: 0.15, 0.75) lower odds, respectively. Both assumed variances and odds were found to underestimate the observed values. Presentation of sample size calculations in the dental literature is suboptimal; incorrect assumptions may have a bearing on the power of RCTs.

Risk of bias and magnitude of effect in orthodontic randomized controlled trials: a meta-epidemiological review

“…Moreover, blinding of outcome assessors was frequently judged to be of high RoB whereas random sequence generation was frequently judged to be of low RoB. These findings underscore not only the compromised internal validity of RCTs in orthodontic research, but also the apparent weaknesses in trial reporting which is not new to biomedical literature (5,(19)(20)(21)(22)(23). Suboptimal reporting and deficient adherence to reporting guidelines of medical and dental RCTs remains a problem, despite the widespread adoption of the Consolidated Standards for Reporting of Trials statement by journals and editorial policies (3,5,24).…”

Publication of statistically significant research findings in prosthodontics & implant dentistry in the context of other dental specialties

“…10,12,[17][18][19][20][21][22][23] through meta-analysis of the The proportions of statistically significant results. were pooled across studies with A random-effects model metaanalysis according to the DerSimonian and Laird 25 24 method was chosen, as several factors have been shown to affect the reporting of statistically significant results.…”

CONSORT 2010 statement: extension checklist for reporting within person randomised trials

“…A recent study identified 43 split mouth designs in a sample of 413 RCTs (10%) published in eight oral health journals with high impact factors from 1992 to 2012. 20 Another study found that 67 of 276 (24%) RCTs published between 1989 and 2011 in implant dentistry journals used the split mouth design. 21 Lee et al found that 13% (9/69) of a sample of ophthalmology RCTs had a within person design in which the two eyes of an individual were randomly assigned different treatments.…”