Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2009 May 12:338:b1732.
doi: 10.1136/bmj.b1732.

Reporting of sample size calculation in randomised controlled trials: review

Affiliations
Review

Reporting of sample size calculation in randomised controlled trials: review

Pierre Charles et al. 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.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: None declared.

Figures

None
Fig 1 Study screening process
None
Fig 2 Histogram of assumptions of treatment effect. For dichotomous and time to event outcomes: relative difference of event rates (larger rate minus smaller rate, divided by rate in control group). For continuous outcomes: standardised effect size.
None
Fig 3 Differences between target sample size and replicated sample size calculations. Differences in sample size calculations are relative differences between target sample size given in materials and methods section of articles and our recalculation with the parameters provided. Box represents median observations (horizontal rule) with 25th and 75th percentiles of observed data (top and bottom of box). Length of each whisker is 1.5 times interquartile range.
None
Fig 4 Relative differences between assumptions and results for control groups
None
Fig 5 Articles selected for analysis of sample size calculations

References

    1. ICH Harmonised Tripartite Guideline. Statistical principles for clinical trials. International Conference on Harmonisation E9 Expert Working Group. Stat Med 1999;18:1905-42. - PubMed
    1. Moher D, Dulberg CS, Wells GA. Statistical power, sample size, and their reporting in randomized controlled trials. JAMA 1994;272:122-4. - PubMed
    1. Altman DG, Schulz KF, Moher D, Egger M, Davidoff F, Elbourne D, et al. The revised CONSORT statement for reporting randomized trials: explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med 2001;134:663-94. - PubMed
    1. Moher D, Schulz KF, Altman DG. The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomised trials. Lancet 2001;357:1191-4. - PubMed
    1. Machin D, Campbell M, Fayers P, Pinol A. Sample size tables for clinical studies. 2nd ed. Oxford: Blackwell Science, 1997.

Publication types

MeSH terms