Do sample size calculations in longitudinal orthodontic trials use the advantages of this study design?

IF 3 2区 医学 Q1 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE
Samer Mheissen, Jadbinder Seehra, Haris Khan, Nikolaos Pandis
{"title":"Do sample size calculations in longitudinal orthodontic trials use the advantages of this study design?","authors":"Samer Mheissen,&nbsp;Jadbinder Seehra,&nbsp;Haris Khan,&nbsp;Nikolaos Pandis","doi":"10.2319/091321-707.1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To examine whether optimal calculations of the sample size are being used in longitudinal orthodontic trials.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Longitudinal orthodontic trials with a minimum of three time points of outcome assessment published between January 1, 2017, and December 30, 2020, were sourced from a single electronic database. Study characteristics at the level of each trial were undertaken independently and in duplicate. Descriptive statistics and summary values were calculated. Inferential statistics (Fisher's exact test and logistic regression) were applied to detect associations between reporting of a sample size calculation and the study characteristics.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 147 trials were analyzed; 75.5% of these trials reported a sample size calculation with none reporting optimal sample size calculation for longitudinal trials. Most of the longitudinal orthodontic trials did not report the correlation and the number of longitudinal measurements in calculating the sample size. An association between reporting of a sample size calculation (yes or no) and the type of journal (orthodontic and non-orthodontic) was detected with higher odds of reporting a sample size calculation in orthodontic journals than in non-orthodontic journals (3.04; 95% confidence interval, 1.4-6.59; P < .01).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The findings of this study highlighted that the undertaking of optimal sample size calculations in longitudinal orthodontic trials is being underused. Greater awareness of the variables required for undertaking the correct sample size calculation in these trials is required to reduce suboptimal research practices.</p>","PeriodicalId":50790,"journal":{"name":"Angle Orthodontist","volume":"92 3","pages":"402-408"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9020395/pdf/i1945-7103-92-3-402.pdf","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Angle Orthodontist","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2319/091321-707.1","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Objectives: To examine whether optimal calculations of the sample size are being used in longitudinal orthodontic trials.

Materials and methods: Longitudinal orthodontic trials with a minimum of three time points of outcome assessment published between January 1, 2017, and December 30, 2020, were sourced from a single electronic database. Study characteristics at the level of each trial were undertaken independently and in duplicate. Descriptive statistics and summary values were calculated. Inferential statistics (Fisher's exact test and logistic regression) were applied to detect associations between reporting of a sample size calculation and the study characteristics.

Results: A total of 147 trials were analyzed; 75.5% of these trials reported a sample size calculation with none reporting optimal sample size calculation for longitudinal trials. Most of the longitudinal orthodontic trials did not report the correlation and the number of longitudinal measurements in calculating the sample size. An association between reporting of a sample size calculation (yes or no) and the type of journal (orthodontic and non-orthodontic) was detected with higher odds of reporting a sample size calculation in orthodontic journals than in non-orthodontic journals (3.04; 95% confidence interval, 1.4-6.59; P < .01).

Conclusions: The findings of this study highlighted that the undertaking of optimal sample size calculations in longitudinal orthodontic trials is being underused. Greater awareness of the variables required for undertaking the correct sample size calculation in these trials is required to reduce suboptimal research practices.

Abstract Image

纵向正畸试验的样本量计算是否利用了本研究设计的优势?
目的:研究纵向正畸试验中是否使用了最佳样本量计算方法。材料和方法:2017年1月1日至2020年12月30日期间发表的至少三个结果评估时间点的纵向正畸试验来源于单一电子数据库。每个试验水平的研究特征是独立进行的,一式两份。计算描述性统计和汇总值。应用推理统计(Fisher精确检验和逻辑回归)来检测报告样本量计算与研究特征之间的关联。结果:共分析147项试验;75.5%的试验报告了样本量计算,但没有报告纵向试验的最佳样本量计算。大多数纵向正畸试验在计算样本量时没有报告纵向测量的相关性和数量。报告样本量计算(是或否)与期刊类型(正畸和非正畸)之间存在关联,正畸期刊报告样本量计算的几率高于非正畸期刊(3.04;95%置信区间为1.4-6.59;P < 0.01)。结论:本研究结果强调,在纵向正畸试验中进行最佳样本量计算的工作尚未得到充分利用。在这些试验中,需要对进行正确样本量计算所需的变量有更大的认识,以减少次优研究实践。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Angle Orthodontist
Angle Orthodontist 医学-牙科与口腔外科
CiteScore
6.40
自引率
5.90%
发文量
95
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: The Angle Orthodontist is the official publication of the Edward H. Angle Society of Orthodontists and is published bimonthly in January, March, May, July, September and November by The EH Angle Education and Research Foundation Inc. The Angle Orthodontist is the only major journal in orthodontics with a non-commercial, non-profit publisher -- The E. H. Angle Education and Research Foundation. We value our freedom to operate exclusively in the best interests of our readers and authors. Our website www.angle.org is completely free and open to all visitors.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信