Literature DB >> 31201561

[Influence of impact factor on reporting sample size calculations in publications on studies exemplified by AMD treatment : Cross-sectional investigation on the presence of sample size calculations in publications of RCTs on AMD treatment in journals with low and high impact factors].

Sabrina Tulka1, Berit Geis2, Stephanie Knippschild2, Christine Baulig2, Frank Krummenauer2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: For scientific and ethical reasons randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs) should be based on a sample size calculation. The CONSORT statement, an established publication guideline for transparent study reporting, requires a sample size calculation in every study publication.
OBJECTIVE: The availability of sample size calculations in RCT publications on treatment of age-related macular degeneration (AMD) was investigated. The primary hypothesis of this investigation compared the prevalence of reported sample size calculations between journals with higher (≥5) versus lower (<5) impact factors (IF).
MATERIAL AND METHODS: It was examined whether information on sample size calculation was available in a series of 97 publications of RTCs on AMD treatment published between 2004 and 2014.
RESULTS: Only 46 out of 97 (47%) study publications provided information on the reason for the number of patients enrolled. The comparison of publications from journals with an IF ≥ 5 (63%, 30) and from journals with an IF < 5 (40%, 67) showed a statistically significant difference of 23% in the frequencies of available sample size calculations (95% confidence interval, CI 2%; 44%). Of the publications published before 2010, 43% reported a sample size calculation versus 51% of the publications afterwards.
CONCLUSION: Publications in journals with higher IF more frequently reported a sample size calculation. More than 50% of the publications did not report any sample size calculation. Authors and reviewers of publications should pay more attention to the explicit reporting of sample size calculations.

Entities:  

Keywords:  CONSORT statement; Clinical trials; Quality of publications; Study planning; Transparent reporting

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 31201561     DOI: 10.1007/s00347-019-0924-0

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ophthalmologe        ISSN: 0941-293X            Impact factor:   1.059


  18 in total

1.  [VIII: Statistics in medical publications: check lists for authors].

Authors:  Frank Krummenauer
Journal:  Klin Monbl Augenheilkd       Date:  2003-05       Impact factor: 0.700

2.  CONSORT 2010 explanation and elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials.

Authors:  David Moher; Sally Hopewell; Kenneth F Schulz; Victor Montori; Peter C Gøtzsche; P J Devereaux; Diana Elbourne; Matthias Egger; Douglas G Altman
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2010-03-23

Review 3.  Reporting and methodological quality of sample size calculations in cluster randomized trials could be improved: a review.

Authors:  Clare Rutterford; Monica Taljaard; Stephanie Dixon; Andrew Copas; Sandra Eldridge
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2014-12-15       Impact factor: 6.437

Review 4.  Pitfalls in reporting sample size calculation in randomized controlled trials published in leading anaesthesia journals: a systematic review.

Authors:  M Abdulatif; A Mukhtar; G Obayah
Journal:  Br J Anaesth       Date:  2015-06-03       Impact factor: 9.166

5.  QUALITY OF SAMPLE SIZE ESTIMATION IN TRIALS OF MEDICAL DEVICES: HIGH-RISK DEVICES FOR NEUROLOGICAL CONDITIONS AS EXAMPLE.

Authors:  Britta Olberg; Matthias Perleth; Katja Felgentraeger; Sandra Schulz; Reinhard Busse
Journal:  Int J Technol Assess Health Care       Date:  2017-05-15       Impact factor: 2.188

Review 6.  Improving Power and Sample Size Calculation in Rehabilitation Trial Reports: A Methodological Assessment.

Authors:  Greta Castellini; Silvia Gianola; Stefanos Bonovas; Lorenzo Moja
Journal:  Arch Phys Med Rehabil       Date:  2016-03-10       Impact factor: 3.966

7.  Sample size calculations for randomized clinical trials published in anesthesiology journals: a comparison of 2010 versus 2016.

Authors:  Jeffrey T Y Chow; Timothy P Turkstra; Edmund Yim; Philip M Jones
Journal:  Can J Anaesth       Date:  2018-03-22       Impact factor: 5.063

Review 8.  Sample size determinations in original research protocols for randomised clinical trials submitted to UK research ethics committees: review.

Authors:  Timothy Clark; Ursula Berger; Ulrich Mansmann
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2013-03-21

9.  Are sample sizes clear and justified in RCTs published in dental journals?

Authors:  Despina Koletsi; Padhraig S Fleming; Jadbinder Seehra; Pantelis G Bagos; Nikolaos Pandis
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-01-21       Impact factor: 3.240

Review 10.  Systematic review finds major deficiencies in sample size methodology and reporting for stepped-wedge cluster randomised trials.

Authors:  James Martin; Monica Taljaard; Alan Girling; Karla Hemming
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2016-02-04       Impact factor: 2.692

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.