Tyler McKechnie , Ruxandra-Maria Bogdan , Kelly Brennan , Victoria Shi , Shan Grewal , Cagla Eskicioglu , Ameer Farooq , Sunil Patel
{"title":"Fragility index for extended prophylaxis following abdominopelvic surgery: A methodological survey","authors":"Tyler McKechnie , Ruxandra-Maria Bogdan , Kelly Brennan , Victoria Shi , Shan Grewal , Cagla Eskicioglu , Ameer Farooq , Sunil Patel","doi":"10.1016/j.amjsurg.2024.116020","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Fragility Index (FI) is increasingly used to assess robustness of statistically significant p-values reported in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). FI represents the lowest number of non-events changed to events that would make study findings non-significant. This methodological survey was designed to assess the fragility of the evidence for extended VTEp following major abdominopelvic surgery.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL were searched from inception to November 2023. RCTs with parallel, double-armed, superiority design comparing extended VTEp for patients undergoing major abdominopelvic surgery to controls with at least one statistically significant dichotomous outcome were included. Walsh et al.’s method of calculating FI was utilized.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>After review of 611 citations, 6 RCTs were identified with 12 statistically significant outcomes between groups. The mean number of patients randomized per RCT was 419 (SD 176). The median FI was 1.5 (range: 1–4). The number of patients lost to follow-up was greater than the FI for 10/12 (83.3 %) outcomes.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>Statistically significant differences reported in RCTs evaluating extended VTEp following major abdominopelvic surgery are not robust.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":7771,"journal":{"name":"American journal of surgery","volume":"239 ","pages":"Article 116020"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American journal of surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002961024005725","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background
Fragility Index (FI) is increasingly used to assess robustness of statistically significant p-values reported in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). FI represents the lowest number of non-events changed to events that would make study findings non-significant. This methodological survey was designed to assess the fragility of the evidence for extended VTEp following major abdominopelvic surgery.
Methods
MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL were searched from inception to November 2023. RCTs with parallel, double-armed, superiority design comparing extended VTEp for patients undergoing major abdominopelvic surgery to controls with at least one statistically significant dichotomous outcome were included. Walsh et al.’s method of calculating FI was utilized.
Results
After review of 611 citations, 6 RCTs were identified with 12 statistically significant outcomes between groups. The mean number of patients randomized per RCT was 419 (SD 176). The median FI was 1.5 (range: 1–4). The number of patients lost to follow-up was greater than the FI for 10/12 (83.3 %) outcomes.
Conclusions
Statistically significant differences reported in RCTs evaluating extended VTEp following major abdominopelvic surgery are not robust.
期刊介绍:
The American Journal of Surgery® is a peer-reviewed journal designed for the general surgeon who performs abdominal, cancer, vascular, head and neck, breast, colorectal, and other forms of surgery. AJS is the official journal of 7 major surgical societies* and publishes their official papers as well as independently submitted clinical studies, editorials, reviews, brief reports, correspondence and book reviews.