ArticleBMC medicine2026
The Trial Bank initiative to promote trustworthy living evidence for medication safety (PROMISE) of children: design and pilot validation.
Article in BMC medicine, 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
24 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundWhile medications are essential for preventing and treating disease, they can also cause harm. Evidence synthesis has been widely adopted for evaluating harms, but traditional methods are resource-intensive and may constrain timely decision-making. This study aims to validate a Trial Bank approach towards rapid evidence synthesis.
methodsA Trial Bank consisting of 13,650 RCTs of pharmaceutical or biopharmaceutical agents for children was established using artificial intelligence (AI) and humans, based on five databases (e.g., PubMed) up to February 14, 2023. The Trial Bank approach for evidence synthesis was validated in two ways: First, the percentage of trials within 1,996 Cochrane meta-analyses of drug safety in children that were also available in the Trial Bank was reported as the Trial Bank coverage (TBC). Second, the agreement of pooled effects from trials limited to those in the Trial Bank was compared to the full Cochrane meta-analyses in terms of their direction and statistical significance.
resultsOf 1,020 trials included in the Cochrane meta-analyses, there was an overall 80.2% TBC, with an average TBC of 85.7% per meta-analysis (n = 1,996). With regards to agreement of meta-analytical results, use of only the Trial Bank trials achieved an agreement of 93.0% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 90.8% to 94.8%) in the direction, 95.8% (95%CI: 94.0% to 97.2%) in significance, and 89.1% (95%CI: 94.0% to 97.2%) in both direction and significance to Cochrane meta-analytical results for meta-analyses that had 2 or more trials (n = 668). Sensitivity analysis by removing unpublished trials from Cochrane meta-analyses showed slightly higher agreement (e.g., 90.7% in both direction and significance).
conclusionsThe Trial Bank approach demonstrated considerable coverage and agreement with Cochrane meta-analyses, suggesting it is a potentially feasible and efficient strategy for supporting living evidence synthesis of medication safety in children.
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.