P.124 Assessing the fragility index of randomized controlled trials on carotid artery stenosis: systematic review

E. Liu, N Tilbury, A. Zhou, J Su, A. Persad, B. Newton, U Ahmed, L Peeling, M. Kelly
{"title":"P.124 Assessing the fragility index of randomized controlled trials on carotid artery stenosis: systematic review","authors":"E. Liu, N Tilbury, A. Zhou, J Su, A. Persad, B. Newton, U Ahmed, L Peeling, M. Kelly","doi":"10.1017/cjn.2024.225","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: The fragility index (FI) is the minimum number of patients whose status would have to change from a nonevent to an event to turn a statistically significant result to a non-significant result. We used this to measure the robustness of trials comparing carotid endarterectomy (CEA) to carotid artery stenting (CAS). Methods: A search was conducted in MEDLINE, Embase, and PubMed on RCTs comparing CEA to CAS. The trials need to have statistically significant results and dichotomous primary endpoints to be included. Results: Our literature search identified 10 RCTs which included 9382 patients (4734 CEA, 4648 CAS). The primary end points of all included trials favoured CEA over CAS. The median FI was 9.5 (interquartile range 2.25 - 21.25). All of the studies that reported lost-to-follow-up (LTFU) had LTFU greater than its fragility index, which raises concern that the missing data could change the results of the trial from statistically significant to statistically insignificant. Conclusions: A small number of events (FI, median 9.5) were required to render the results of carotid artery stenosis RCTs comparing CEA to CAS statistically insignificant. All of the studies that reported LTFU had LTFU greater than its fragility index.","PeriodicalId":9571,"journal":{"name":"Canadian Journal of Neurological Sciences / Journal Canadien des Sciences Neurologiques","volume":"2 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Canadian Journal of Neurological Sciences / Journal Canadien des Sciences Neurologiques","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/cjn.2024.225","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The fragility index (FI) is the minimum number of patients whose status would have to change from a nonevent to an event to turn a statistically significant result to a non-significant result. We used this to measure the robustness of trials comparing carotid endarterectomy (CEA) to carotid artery stenting (CAS). Methods: A search was conducted in MEDLINE, Embase, and PubMed on RCTs comparing CEA to CAS. The trials need to have statistically significant results and dichotomous primary endpoints to be included. Results: Our literature search identified 10 RCTs which included 9382 patients (4734 CEA, 4648 CAS). The primary end points of all included trials favoured CEA over CAS. The median FI was 9.5 (interquartile range 2.25 - 21.25). All of the studies that reported lost-to-follow-up (LTFU) had LTFU greater than its fragility index, which raises concern that the missing data could change the results of the trial from statistically significant to statistically insignificant. Conclusions: A small number of events (FI, median 9.5) were required to render the results of carotid artery stenosis RCTs comparing CEA to CAS statistically insignificant. All of the studies that reported LTFU had LTFU greater than its fragility index.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
P.124 评估颈动脉狭窄随机对照试验的脆性指数:系统综述
背景:脆性指数(FI)是指从无事件转变为有事件,从而将有统计学意义的结果转变为无意义结果的最少患者人数。我们用它来衡量颈动脉内膜剥脱术(CEA)与颈动脉支架置入术(CAS)比较试验的稳健性。方法:在 MEDLINE、Embase 和 PubMed 中检索了比较 CEA 和 CAS 的 RCT。纳入的试验需要具有统计学意义的结果和二分法主要终点。结果:我们的文献检索发现了 10 项 RCT,共纳入 9382 例患者(4734 例 CEA,4648 例 CAS)。所有纳入试验的主要终点均为CEA优于CAS。中位 FI 为 9.5(四分位距为 2.25 - 21.25)。所有报告失去随访(LTFU)的研究的LTFU都大于其脆性指数,这让人担心数据缺失可能会使试验结果从统计学意义显著变为统计学意义不显著。结论:将 CEA 与 CAS 进行比较的颈动脉狭窄 RCT 研究需要少量事件(FI,中位数为 9.5)才能使结果在统计学上不显著。所有报告LTFU的研究的LTFU都大于其脆性指数。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
B.2 Time from symptom onset and number of health care encounters prior to diagnosis of cerebral venous thrombosis D.6 Neurological care and outcomes of pregnant patients with epilepsy in a Canadian tertiary care center (2014-2020) F.4 Anatomical assessment and comparative analysis of ventricular access points in pterional approach: a cadaveric study P.077 Reducing artifact during in bi-directional brain interfacing P.006 Barriers and risk factors for emergency room visits vs smartphone app use for migraine in Canada and the United States
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1