Abstract:Objectives: Economic evaluations based on well-designed and -conducted pragmatic randomized controlled trials (pRCTs) can provide valuable evidence on the cost-effectiveness of interventions, enhancing the relevance and applicability of findings to healthcare decision-making. However, economic evaluation outcomes are seldom taken into consideration during the process of sample size calculation in pragmatic trials. The reporting quality of sample size and information on its calculation in economic evaluations that are well-suited to pRCTs remain unknown. This study aims to assess the reporting quality of sample size and estimate the power values of economic evaluations in pRCTs. Study design and setting: We conducted a cross-sectional survey using data of pRCTs available from PubMed and OVID from 1 January 2010 to 24 April 2022. Two groups of independent reviewers identified articles; three groups of reviewers each extracted the data. Descriptive statistics presented the general characteristics of included studies. Statistical power analyses were performed on clinical and economic outcomes with sufficient data. Results: The electronic search identified 715 studies and 152 met the inclusion criteria. Of these, 26 were available for power analysis. Only 9 out of 152 trials (5.9%) considered economic outcomes when estimating sample size, and only one adjusted the sample size accordingly. Power values for trial-based economic evaluations and clinical trials ranged from 2.56% to 100% and 3.21%-100%, respectively. Regardless of the perspectives, in 14 out of the 26 studies (53.8%), the power values of economic evaluations for quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were lower than those of clinical trials for primary endpoints (PEs). In 11 out of the 24 (45.8%) and in 8 out of the 13 (61.5%) studies, power values of economic evaluations for QALYs were lower than those of clinical trials for PEs from the healthcare and societal perspectives, respectively. Power values of economic evaluations for non-QALYs from the healthcare and societal perspectives were potentially higher than those of clinical trials in 3 out of the 4 studies (75%). The power values for economic outcomes in Q1 were not higher than those for other journal impact factor quartile categories. Conclusion: Theoretically, pragmatic trials with concurrent economic evaluations can provide real-world evidence for healthcare decision makers. However, in pRCT-based economic evaluations, limited consideration, and inadequate reporting of sample-size calculations for economic outcomes could negatively affect the results' reliability and generalisability. We thus recommend that future pragmatic trials with economic evaluations should report how sample sizes are determined or adjusted based on the economic outcomes in their protocols to enhance their transparency and evidence quality.

Reporting of sample size parameters for randomized controlled trials published in high impact factor endodontic journals in the last decade: A bibliometric analysis

Benchmarking the Endodontic Literature on MEDLINE

The quality of reporting RCT abstracts in four major orthodontics journals for the period 2012–2017

A bibliometric analysis of two PubMed-indexed high-impact factor endodontic journals: A comparison of India with other countries

Analysis of the Use of Sample Size and Effect Size Calculations in a Temporomandibular Disorders Randomised Controlled Trial—Short Narrative Review

Altmetric and impact analysis of randomized clinical trials in dentistry

Demographic characteristics of systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and randomized controlled trials in orthodontic journals with impact factor

Pay attention to the analysis: common statistical errors in orthodontic Randomised Clinical Trials.

Reporting quality of scoping reviews in endodontics: A meta-research study

Study design and statistical methods in Indian medical journals

Sharing endodontic research on social media platforms: Is it effective? A 10-year timeline analysis

A critical look at outcome measures: Comparison between four dental research journals by use of a hierarchical model

Reporting of Search Strategy Among Systematic Reviews in Leading Dental Specialty Journals: A Research‐On‐Research Study

Factors influencing the impact of randomized clinical trials on dental implants: A bibliometric analysis

Reporting Quality of Abstracts in Systematic Reviews in Orthodontics: An Observational Study

Selective outcome reporting among randomized controlled trials published in leading dental journals: A research-on-research study

Bibliometric and visualized analysis of randomized controlled trials in orthodontics between 1991 and 2022

The OHStat Guidelines for Reporting Observational Studies and Clinical Trials in Oral Health Research: Explanation and Elaboration

Are Reports of Randomized Controlled Trials Improving over Time? A Systematic Review of 284 Articles Published in High-Impact General and Specialized Medical Journals

[Evidence-Based Quality Assessment of 10-Year Orthodontic Clinical Trials in 4 Major Dental Journals].

Poor sample size reporting quality and insufficient sample size in economic evaluations conducted alongside pragmatic trials: a cross-sectional survey