ReviewBJA open2026
Platform trials in anaesthesia and perioperative medicine: a scoping review.
Review in BJA open, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Traditional randomized control trials underpin evidence generation in anaesthesia and perioperative medicine, but are often poorly suited to evaluating multiple, evolving clinical questions. Platform trials encorporate a trial design that evaluates multiple interventions within one or more domains, is governed centrally using a master or core protocol, and has the capacity to add new research questions through the addition of new treatments and/or subgroup. Platform trials offer a flexible alternative, enabling the concurrent and sequential evaluation of multiple interventions and more efficient identification of effective or harmful treatments. Methods: We conducted a scoping review using the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology, reported in accordance with PRISMA-ScR. Searches of bibliographic databases, grey literature and clinical trial registries (Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, Scopus, CINAHL Complete, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library) were undertaken. Records meeting an a priori definition of platform trials in anaesthesia or perioperative medicine were included. Trial design and methodological features were extracted and synthesised descriptively. Results: Among 32 062 records identified, nine platform trials met eligibility criteria. Most were registered (8/9) and university-sponsored, with nearly half in the planning phase. All trials were multicentre, predominantly conducted in high-income countries and 44% involved international collaboration. Adult surgical populations were most commonly studied, with surgical site infection prevention being the leading perioperative focus. Across the nine platform trials, 24 interventions were evaluated, predominantly surgical (58.3%), followed by anaesthetic (12.5%). Adaptive features were universal, and Bayesian statistical methods predominated. Conclusions: Platform trials remain uncommon and methodologically diverse in anaesthesia and perioperative medicine, reflecting early-stage adoption within an evolving field. Greater consensus regarding nomenclature, governance, and methodological standards, alongside expansion into anaesthesia-specific domains, is needed to realise their efficiency and ethical advantages.
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.