Meta-analysis is a statistical method used in systematic reviews to provide a quantitative estimate of the effect. However, including very few studies and participants may increase the risk of spurious findings. Trial sequential analysis (TSA) has been introduced to enhance the robustness of meta-analysis. TSA is a cumulative meta-analysis method that weighs type I and II errors while estimating the effect. The application of TSA can lead to a more accurate estimation of the clinical effectiveness of the intervention. The aim of the present paper was to introduce the TSA to orthodontic clinicians and researchers using continuous data from an orthodontic systematic review.
BormGFDondersAR (2009) Updating meta-analyses leads to larger type I errors than publication bias. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology62: 825–830.e10.
2.
BrokJThorlundKGluudCWetterslevJ (2008) Trial sequential analysis reveals insufficient information size and potentially false positive results in many meta-analyses. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology61: 763–769.
3.
DaraqelBMheissenSLiJKhanHAllanSZhengL (2023) The effect of early versus delayed space closure on the rate of orthodontic tooth movement: A systematic review and meta-analysis. European Journal of Orthodontics45: 680–689.
4.
De CassaiATassoneMGeraldiniFSergiMSellaNBoscoloA, et al. (2021) Explanation of trial sequential analysis: Using a post-hoc analysis of meta-analyses published in Korean Journal of Anesthesiology. Korean Journal of Anesthesiology74: 383–393.
5.
DeMetsDLLanKK (1994) Interim analysis: The alpha spending function approach. Statistics in Medicine13: 1341–1352; discussion 1353-1346.
6.
HigginsJThomasJChandlerJCumpstonMLiTPageM, et al. (eds) (2023) Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 6.4 (updated August 2023). Available at: www.training.cochrane.org/handbook.
7.
ImbergerGThorlundKGluudCWetterslevJ (2016) False-positive findings in Cochrane meta-analyses with and without application of trial sequential analysis: An empirical review. BMJ Open6: e011890.
8.
JakobsenJCWetterslevJWinkelPLangeTGluudC (2014) Thresholds for statistical and clinical significance in systematic reviews with meta-analytic methods. BMC Medical Research Methodology14: 120.
9.
MheissenSAldandanMKhanH (2023) Insufficient information size and potentially false results in orthodontic meta-analyses using trial sequential analysis. European Journal of Orthodontics45: 802–807.
10.
MuradMHWangZChuHLinLEl MikatiIKhabsaJ, et al. (2023) Proposed triggers for retiring a living systematic review. BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine28: 348–352.
11.
O’BrienPCFlemingTR (1979) A multiple testing procedure for clinical trials. Biometrics35: 549–556.
12.
PereiraTVIoannidisJP (2011) Statistically significant meta-analyses of clinical trials have modest credibility and inflated effects. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology64: 1060–1069.
13.
SchulzKFChalmersIHayesRJAltmanDG (1995) Empirical evidence of bias: Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials. JAMA273: 408–412.
14.
ThorlundKDevereauxPJWetterslevJGuyattGIoannidisJPAThabaneL, et al. (2009) Can trial sequential monitoring boundaries reduce spurious inferences from meta-analyses?International Journal Epidemiology38: 276–286.
15.
ThorlundKEngstrømJWetterslevJBrokJImbergerGGluudC (2017) User Manual for Trial Sequential Analysis (TSA). Copenhagen: Copenhagen Trial Unit, pp.1–119.
16.
ThorlundKImbergerGWalshMChuRGluudCWetterslevJ, et al. (2011) The number of patients and events required to limit the risk of overestimation of intervention effects in meta-analysis—a simulation study. PLoS One6: e25491.
17.
TurnerRMBirdSMHigginsJP (2013) The impact of study size on meta-analyses: Examination of underpowered studies in Cochrane reviews. PLoS One8: e59202.
