ArticleBMC medical research methodology2026
Where did I leave my systematic review protocol, and what should it contain regarding Trial Sequential Analysis?
Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPublishing a protocol before starting a systematic review is necessary to ensure data integrity and trustworthiness of results. Trial Sequential Analysis (TSA) is a program and analysis method to control random type I and type II errors often used in systematic reviews (having a protocol in some form) and meta-analyses publications (having no protocol). We scrutinised protocols for systematic reviews and meta-analyses reports to examine their quality and transparency focusing on TSA parameters.
methodsWe searched Medline and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from 1 January 2018 to 31 December, 2021 for published systematic reviews and meta-analysis reports that included a TSA. We included reports that had at least two randomised clinical trials analysed in a forest plot plus in a TSA. Two independent researchers extracted data to assess coherence between the protocol and its systematic review. Disagreements were resolved through discussion or arbitration.
resultsWe included 270 systematic reviews with pre-published protocols and 274 meta-analyses without protocols. Among the systematic reviews, 135 (50%) planned to perform TSA in their protocols (112 dichotomous and 23 continuous outcomes). TSA parameters between protocols and published reviews were often inconsistent. For dichotomous outcomes, consistency was highest for alpha (50.9%) and lowest for power (1.8%). For continuous outcomes, consistency was minimal across all parameters. Statistically significant deviations between planned and actual TSA values were observed for statistical power (mean increase 8.95%; 95% CI 7.43% to 10.47%; p < 0.001) and heterogeneity (43.8% vs. 57.1%; p = 0.048) in dichotomous outcomes. Systematic reviews with predefined TSA parameters in protocols demonstrated significantly better reporting of the proportion of participants with the outcome in the control groups, alpha, and heterogeneity compared to those without protocol information. These patterns persisted when including the meta-analyses reports. Systematic reviews with continuous outcomes showed similar trends, though differences were not statistically significant.
conclusionTSA is often neglected in systematic reviews protocols and when planned the TSA parameters are inconsistently reported and followed. Predefined protocols improve transparency and reporting, and should be required to enhance reproducibility, reduce bias, and prevent research waste in systematic reviews.
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.