Are treatment effect assumptions in orthodontic studies overoptimistic?

Seehra, Jadbinder; Stonehouse-Smith, Daniel; Cobourne, Martyn T; Tsagris, Michail; Pandis, Nikolaos (2021). Are treatment effect assumptions in orthodontic studies overoptimistic? European journal of orthodontics, 43(5), pp. 583-587. Oxford University Press 10.1093/ejo/cjab018

Text cjab018.pdf - Published Version Restricted to registered users only Available under License Publisher holds Copyright. Author holds Copyright Download (239kB) | Request a copy

BACKGROUND

At the clinical trial design stage, assumptions regarding the treatment effects to be detected should be appropriate so that the required sample size can be calculated. There is evidence in the medical literature that sample size assumption can be overoptimistic. The aim of this study was to compare the distribution of the assumed effects versus that of the observed effects as a proxy for overoptimistic treatment effect assumptions at the study design stage.

MATERIALS AND METHOD

Systematic reviews (SRs) published between 1 January 2010 and 31 December 2019 containing at least one meta-analysis on continuous outcomes were identified electronically. SR and primary study level characteristics were extracted from the SRs and the individual trials. Details on the sample size calculation process and assumptions and the observed treatment effects were extracted.

RESULTS

Eighty-five SRs with meta-analysis containing 347 primary trials were included. The median number of SR authors was 5 (interquartile range: 4-7). At the primary study level, the majority were single centre (78.1%), utilized a parallel design (52%), and rated as an unclear/moderate level of risk of bias (34.3%). A sample size was described in only 31.7% (110/347) of studies. From this cohort of 110 studies, in only 37 studies was the assumed clinical difference that the study was designed to detect reported (37/110). The assumed treatment effect was recalculated for the remaining 73 studies (73/110). The one-sided exact signed rank test showed a significant difference between the assumed and observed treatment effects (P < 0.001) suggesting greater values for the assumed effect sizes.

CONCLUSIONS

Careful consideration of the assumptions at the design stage of orthodontic studies are necessary in order to reduce the unreliability of clinical study results and research waste.

Interest & Impact

Downloads

2 since deposited on 17 Jun 2021
0 in the past 12 months

Citations

5 Citations in Web of Science ®
6 Citations in Scopus

Search

in Google Scholar™

Services

Actions (login required)

Edit item

Actions (login required)

Edit item