ArticleTrials2025
Lack of reproducibility of trial sequential analyses: a meta-epidemiological study.
Article in Trials, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Where did I leave my systematic review protocol, and what should it contain regarding Trial Sequential Analysis?BMC medical research methodology · 2026Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are essential tools for synthesizing evidence from multiple studies. Recently, trial sequential analyses (TSAs) have gained popularity as a component of meta-analyses, helping researchers dynamically monitor evidence as new studies are incorporated. This article introduces a meta-epidemiological study aimed at evaluating the reproducibility of TSAs within systematic reviews published in 2023. Two independent investigators assessed and reproduced the main TSA for each included systematic review. Our search in PubMed yielded a convenience sample of 98 systematic reviews. Only 28% (27/98) of the included TSAs provided sufficient data to calculate the required information size, an essential element for assessing statistical power and conducting TSAs. Among these, 81% (22/27) provided the necessary data to determine decision boundaries and Z-curves in TSAs. Overall, full reproducibility was achieved for only 13% (13/98) of TSAs. Specifically, for binary outcomes, 65% (47/72) of TSAs failed to report event rates in control groups, and 44% (32/72) did not report relative risk reductions. For continuous outcomes, 53% (17/32) failed to report minimally relevant differences, and 72% (23/32) did not report variances. These elements are crucial for TSA reproducibility. Moreover, the reproducibility of TSAs was associated with journal impact factors and adherence to the PRISMA guidelines. A collective effort is needed from systematic review authors, peer reviewers, and journal editors to improve the reproducibility of TSAs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.