Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33940767›Full record

ReviewAnesthesia and pain medicine2021

Trial sequential analysis: novel approach for meta-analysis.

Hyun Kang

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Anesthesia and pain medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 113 papers, 56 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
113citing papers in PubMed, 56 pooled it
–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

113 citing papers in PubMed, 56 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Diagnostic Agreement in Subepidermal Blistering Diseases: Is ELISA Test Reliable as Direct Immunofluorescence? A Systematic Review, Meta-Analysis, and Trial Sequential Analysis.Journal of oral pathology & medicine : official publication of the International Association of Oral Pathologists and the American Academy of Oral Pathology · 2026
    Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. Pooled it
  16. Pooled it
  17. Pooled it
  18. Pooled it
  19. Pooled it
  20. Pooled it

53 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

1 author.

Hyun KangDepartment of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Chung-Ang University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses rank the highest in the evidence hierarchy. However, they still have the risk of spurious results because they include too few studies and participants. The use of trial sequential analysis (TSA) has increased recently, providing more information on the precision and uncertainty of meta-analysis results. This makes it a powerful tool for clinicians to assess the conclusiveness of meta-analysis. TSA provides monitoring boundaries or futility boundaries, helping clinicians prevent unnecessary trials. The use and interpretation of TSA should be based on an understanding of the principles and assumptions behind TSA, which may provide more accurate, precise, and unbiased information to clinicians, patients, and policymakers. In this article, the history, background, principles, and assumptions behind TSA are described, which would lead to its better understanding, implementation, and interpretation.

Indexed as

Interim analysisMeta-analysisStatisticsTrial sequential analysis

Identifiers

PMID33940767
PMCPMC8107247

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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 Socratic graph.