100 Prevalence of complete sample size justifications in recent publications in top clinical neurology journals

Abstract

Objectives/Goals: This study examines prevalence of complete sample size justifications in publications in the top five clinical neurology journals. Secondary goals include comparing study designs and clinical populations to explore whether some may be more likely to include inadequate sample size considerations. Methods/Study Population: Recent studies (n  =  125) in Lancet Neurology, Alzheimer’s and Dementia, JAMA Neurology, Acta Neuropathology, and Brain will be evaluated. For each journal, the 25 most recent empirical articles between 2022 and 2023 will be examined for their inclusion of a justification and reproducible sample size calculation. Inclusion of components of an ideal sample size justification will be evaluated: effect size to be detected (standardized or unstandardized), alpha, power, and from where values were derived. Prevalence and completeness will be compared among study designs, clinical populations, and with regard to journal reporting requirements. Results/Anticipated Results: At the pilot review stage, 17 of 25 included studies had any kind of sample size justification, and only 3 studies had enough information to reproduce their sample size calculations. Retrospective studies included a sample size justification more frequently (81.8% vs. 57.1%), but prospective studies had more complete sample size justifications, when present. We hypothesize that sample size calculations will be more complete in reports of clinical trials and prospective cohort studies, compared to retrospective and cross-sectional designs. Based on our previous research, we do not expect that journal reporting requirements will affect completeness of sample size justifications. Discussion/Significance of Impact: Translational decision-making is informed in part by the robustness of current research. Transparency of sample size considerations in publications can contribute to the formation of less biased opinions of translational readiness and, subsequently, more efficient and effective translation.