Suppr超能文献

发表于4本正畸学杂志的随机临床试验中报告的样本量计算

Reporting Sample Size Calculation in Randomized Clinical Trials Published in 4 Orthodontic Journals.

作者信息

Calderon-Augusto Marialicia, Flores-Mir Carlos, Arriola-Guillén Luis Ernesto

机构信息

Department of Orthodontics, Universidad Científica del Sur School of Dentistry, Lima, Perú.

Department of Orthodontics, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.

出版信息

Turk J Orthod. 2021 Dec;34(4):214-219. doi: 10.5152/TurkJOrthod.2021.21030.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to describe sample size calculations in randomized clinical trials (RCTs) published in four orthodontic journals.

METHODS

This cross-sectional study evaluated 142 RCTs published from 2015 to 2019 in the four journals with the highest impact factor in orthodontics according to SCIMAGO 2018 ranking. Two trained and experienced orthodontists assessed if the RCTs evaluated reported their sample size calculations, and if they adequately described the criteria for the calculations, including the level of significance, test power, precision or effect size (clinically relevant difference), and expected variability. The reporting of sample size calculation was considered adequate when the above four criteria were described.

RESULTS

We identified 120 publications (84.5%) reporting the sample size calculation, but only 70 (58.3%) fully described the above parameters. Inadequate calculation included failure to report the confidence level (ranging from 0% to 12.9%), test power (ranging from 0% to 20%), effect size (ranging from 0% to 22.5%) and expected variability (ranging from 22.6% to 80%). According to the journal, some parameters of sample size calculation were more frequently reported.

CONCLUSION

RCTs published in four leading orthodontic journals frequently do not report the parameters used for sample size calculations.

摘要

目的

本研究旨在描述在四本正畸学杂志上发表的随机临床试验(RCT)中的样本量计算情况。

方法

这项横断面研究评估了根据2018年SCIMAGO排名在正畸学领域影响因子最高的四本杂志上2015年至2019年发表的142项RCT。两名训练有素且经验丰富的正畸医生评估这些RCT是否报告了样本量计算情况,以及是否充分描述了计算标准,包括显著性水平、检验效能、精度或效应量(临床相关差异)以及预期变异性。当上述四个标准均被描述时,样本量计算的报告被认为是充分的。

结果

我们确定有120篇出版物(84.5%)报告了样本量计算情况,但只有70篇(58.3%)充分描述了上述参数。计算不充分包括未报告置信水平(范围为0%至12.9%)、检验效能(范围为0%至20%)、效应量(范围为0%至22.5%)和预期变异性(范围为22.6%至80%)。根据杂志不同,样本量计算的一些参数报告得更为频繁。

结论

在四本领先的正畸学杂志上发表的RCT经常未报告用于样本量计算的参数。

相似文献

本文引用的文献

7
9
The reporting quality of randomized controlled trials in orthodontics.正畸学中随机对照试验的报告质量。
J Evid Based Dent Pract. 2014 Jun;14(2):46-52. doi: 10.1016/j.jebdp.2013.12.001. Epub 2014 Apr 18.

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验