Cited by 275Statistical Methods in Clinical TrialsMeta-analysis and systematic reviewsStatistical Methods in Epidemiology

Reporting of sample size calculation in randomised controlled trials: review

Open access
Charles, P., Giraudeau, B., Dechartres, A., Baron, G., Ravaud, P.·2009·BMJ

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To assess quality of reporting of sample size calculation, ascertain accuracy of calculations, and determine the relevance of assumptions made when calculating sample size in randomised controlled trials. DESIGN: Review. DATA SOURCES: We searched MEDLINE for all primary reports of two arm parallel group randomised controlled trials of superiority with a single primary outcome published in six high impact factor general medical journals between 1 January 2005 and 31 December 2006. All extra material related to design of trials (other articles, online material, online trial registration) was systematically assessed. Data extracted by use of a standardised form included parameters required for sample size calculation and corresponding data reported in results sections of articles. We checked completeness of reporting of the sample size calculation, systematically replicated the sample size calculation to assess its accuracy, then quantified discrepancies between a priori hypothesised parameters necessary for calculation and a posteriori estimates. RESULTS: Of the 215 selected articles, 10 (5%) did not report any sample size calculation and 92 (43%) did not report all the required parameters. The difference between the sample size reported in the article and the replicated sample size calculation was greater than 10% in 47 (30%) of the 157 reports that gave enough data to recalculate the sample size. The difference between the assumptions for the control group and the observed data was greater than 30% in 31% (n=45) of articles and greater than 50% in 17% (n=24). Only 73 trials (34%) reported all data required to calculate the sample size, had an accurate calculation, and used accurate assumptions for the control group. CONCLUSIONS: Sample size calculation is still inadequately reported, often erroneous, and based on assumptions that are frequently inaccurate. Such a situation raises questions about how sample size is calculated in randomised controlled trials.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1136/bmj.b1732

Cites

33 of 33 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [24]Simon R. Discussions. Biometrics 2008; 64: 589-91.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Charles, P., Giraudeau, B., Dechartres, A., Baron, G., & Ravaud, P.
Affiliations
  • Inserm (FR)
  • Université de Tours (FR)
Corresponding author
Ravaud, P.
Venue
BMJ
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2009-05-12
Volume
338
Issue
may12 1
Pages
b1732-b1732
ISSN
  • 0007-1447 (ISSN-L)
  • 0959-8138
  • 1468-5833
OpenAlex
W2039964888
Cited by
274
References
33
Citations by year
2026: 13 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 19 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 19 · 2020: 16 · 2019: 21 · 2018: 23 · 2017: 15 · 2016: 14 · 2015: 15 · 2014: 24 · 2013: 14 · 2012: 14
FWCI
9.68
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by-nc
Locations
  • BMJ (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Epidemiology
Keywords
sample size determination, reporting quality, randomized controlled trials, statistical power, a priori assumptions, trial design, primary outcomes, methodological quality
MeSH terms
Data Collection, Sensitivity and Specificity, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Sample Size

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review