Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38525205›Full record

ArticleAnesthesiology research and practice2024

Simulation-Based Analysis of Trial Design in Regional Anesthesia.

Melisa Pasli, Dmitry Tumin, Ryan Guffey

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Anesthesiology research and practice, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Melisa PasliBrody School of Medicine, East Carolina University, Greenville, NC, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9881-8713
Dmitry TuminDepartment of Pediatrics, Brody School of Medicine, East Carolina University, Greenville, NC, USA.
Ryan GuffeyDepartment of Anesthesiology, Washington University School of Medicine, Saint Louis, MO, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: In regional anesthesia, the efficacy of novel blocks is typically evaluated using randomized controlled trials (RCTs), the findings of which are aggregated in systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Systematic review authors frequently point out the small sample size of RCTs as limiting conclusions from this literature. We sought to determine via statistical simulation if small sample size could be an expected property of RCTs focusing on novel blocks with typical effect sizes. Methods: We simulated the conduct of a series of RCTs comparing a novel block versus placebo on a single continuous outcome measure. Simulation analysis inputs were obtained from a systematic bibliographic search of meta-analyses. Primary outcomes were the predicted number of large trials (empirically defined as Results: Simulation analysis predicted that a novel block would be tested in 16 RCTs enrolling a median of 970 patients (interquartile range (IQR) across 1000 simulations: 806, 1269), with no large trials. Among possible modifications to trial design, decreasing the statistical significance threshold from Conclusion: Small sample size of regional anesthesia RCTs comparing novel block to placebo is a rational outcome of trial design. Feasibly large trials are unlikely to change conclusions regarding block vs. placebo comparisons.

Identifiers

PMID38525205
PMCPMC10959581

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.