Characteristically, people cannot read frequentist results, so you can see rather different interpretations of this null result.
* or in full "We dunno because we're doing tabula rasa frequentism where we pretend we have no evidence besides these small hasty studies."
78 trials in 3 years. Is that a lot?
No in the sense that they weren't large or unbiased enough to get over a NHST bar. (Amazing how little n=600,000 gets you if you don't nail down the design)
No in the sense that millions of QALYs and billions of $ were riding on the results