ArticleBritish journal of anaesthesia2026
Defining estimands in anaesthesia clinical trials: a scoping review and framework.
Article in British journal of anaesthesia, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Defining estimands in anaesthesia clinical trials: a scoping review and framework.British journal of anaesthesia · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIntercurrent events, such as treatment switching and rescue medication, commonly occur in anaesthesia trials, and can affect the occurrence or interpretation of primary outcomes. The estimand framework provides strategies for handling these events, aligning trial objectives with outcomes.
methodsWe conducted a scoping review of RCTs with ≥100 participants published from January 2020 to June 2024 in ten high-impact journals, including patients receiving anaesthesia before surgery. We examined whether estimands were reported and identified intercurrent events. A structured framework was developed by mapping intercurrent events to intervention-outcome combinations investigated across all included anaesthesia trials.
resultsAmong 139 included trials, none explicitly used the estimand framework, and an estimand could be inferred in only 27 (19%). The primary outcome was defined in all trials, while other attributes were often not inferable: target population (44 [32%]), treatment condition (21 [15%]), summary measure (22 [16%]) and intercurrent event handling (84 [60%]). The most common intercurrent events were not receiving the randomised intervention (64 [46%]), treatment discontinuation (38 [27%]), and treatment switching (27 [19%]). Anaesthesia-related intercurrent events included surgery cancellation (37 [27%]) and non-protocolised anaesthesia management (17 [12%]). Findings informed the development of a structured, interactive web-based tool linking intercurrent events to intervention-outcome combinations, refined by expert review.
conclusionsUse of estimands in anaesthesia trials is limited. Our tool supports structured identification and handling of intercurrent events in anaesthesia trials. Greater collaboration between statisticians and clinicians, with consistent application of the estimand framework, is needed to improve clarity and interpretability of future anaesthesia research.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.