The fragility of statistical findings in the intertrochanteric fracture fixation literature: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials

IF 2.1 3区 医学 Q2 ORTHOPEDICS Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery Pub Date : 2025-03-22 DOI:10.1007/s00402-025-05804-0
Anya Wang, Avanish Yendluri, Michael N. Megafu, John K. Cordero, David A. Forsh, Scott P. Ryan, Paul Tornetta III, Robert L. Parisien, Investigation performed by the Scientific Collaborative for Orthopaedic Research and Education (SCORE) Group
{"title":"The fragility of statistical findings in the intertrochanteric fracture fixation literature: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials","authors":"Anya Wang,&nbsp;Avanish Yendluri,&nbsp;Michael N. Megafu,&nbsp;John K. Cordero,&nbsp;David A. Forsh,&nbsp;Scott P. Ryan,&nbsp;Paul Tornetta III,&nbsp;Robert L. Parisien,&nbsp;Investigation performed by the Scientific Collaborative for Orthopaedic Research and Education (SCORE) Group","doi":"10.1007/s00402-025-05804-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Introduction</h3><p>Intertrochanteric fractures are common and can lead to significant disability and morality, particularly in the elderly. Utilizing the fragility index (FI), reverse fragility index (rFI), and fragility quotient (FQ), this study evaluates the statistical fragility of outcomes reported in intertrochanteric fracture fixation randomized controlled trials (RCTs).</p><h3>Materials and methods</h3><p><i>Data sources</i>: Pubmed, Embase, and MEDLINE were queried for RCTs published between 2010-present. <i>Study selection</i>: RCTs reporting 1:1 categorical, dichotomous outcomes were included. Articles were excluded if they were not RCTs, had over two treatment groups, included in vitro/animal/cadaveric data, and did not feature intertrochanteric fractures. <i>Data extraction</i>: Publication and individual outcome data were collected by three independent reviewers. <i>Data synthesis</i>: FI and rFI were calculated as the number of event reversals required to reverse the statistical significance for each outcome. The FQ was calculated by dividing FI by the study sample size. Subgroup analysis was performed based on outcome types.</p><h3>Results</h3><p>Two hundred thirty-two articles were screened, and 52 articles with a total of 370 outcomes were included for analysis. The median FI was 5 (IQR 4–6) with a FQ of 0.05 (IQR 0.032–0.078). 57/370 outcomes were statistically significant with a median FI of 3 (IQR 1–8). 313 outcomes were statistically nonsignificant with a median rFI of 5 (IQR 4–6). The number of patients lost to follow-up was greater than or equal to the FI in 127/370 outcomes (34.32%). Outcomes relating to malunion/nonunion were the most fragile, encompassing 11 outcomes with a median FI of 3 (IQR 2.5–5).</p><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>Outcomes in intertrochanteric fracture fixation RCTs are fragile as reversal of a few outcomes or maintaining follow-up may alter the significance of study findings. Thus, <i>P</i>-values are recommended to be routinely reported with FI and FQ metrics in order to provide a comprehensive understanding of the statistical robustness of outcomes in orthopedic trauma literature.</p><h3>Level of evidence</h3><p>I.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":8326,"journal":{"name":"Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery","volume":"145 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00402-025-05804-0","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction

Intertrochanteric fractures are common and can lead to significant disability and morality, particularly in the elderly. Utilizing the fragility index (FI), reverse fragility index (rFI), and fragility quotient (FQ), this study evaluates the statistical fragility of outcomes reported in intertrochanteric fracture fixation randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

Materials and methods

Data sources: Pubmed, Embase, and MEDLINE were queried for RCTs published between 2010-present. Study selection: RCTs reporting 1:1 categorical, dichotomous outcomes were included. Articles were excluded if they were not RCTs, had over two treatment groups, included in vitro/animal/cadaveric data, and did not feature intertrochanteric fractures. Data extraction: Publication and individual outcome data were collected by three independent reviewers. Data synthesis: FI and rFI were calculated as the number of event reversals required to reverse the statistical significance for each outcome. The FQ was calculated by dividing FI by the study sample size. Subgroup analysis was performed based on outcome types.

Results

Two hundred thirty-two articles were screened, and 52 articles with a total of 370 outcomes were included for analysis. The median FI was 5 (IQR 4–6) with a FQ of 0.05 (IQR 0.032–0.078). 57/370 outcomes were statistically significant with a median FI of 3 (IQR 1–8). 313 outcomes were statistically nonsignificant with a median rFI of 5 (IQR 4–6). The number of patients lost to follow-up was greater than or equal to the FI in 127/370 outcomes (34.32%). Outcomes relating to malunion/nonunion were the most fragile, encompassing 11 outcomes with a median FI of 3 (IQR 2.5–5).

Conclusion

Outcomes in intertrochanteric fracture fixation RCTs are fragile as reversal of a few outcomes or maintaining follow-up may alter the significance of study findings. Thus, P-values are recommended to be routinely reported with FI and FQ metrics in order to provide a comprehensive understanding of the statistical robustness of outcomes in orthopedic trauma literature.

Level of evidence

I.

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
转子间骨折固定文献中统计结果的脆弱性:随机对照试验的系统回顾
股骨粗隆间骨折很常见,可导致严重的残疾和道德问题,尤其是在老年人中。利用脆性指数(FI)、反向脆性指数(rFI)和脆性商(FQ),本研究评估了转子间骨折固定随机对照试验(rct)结果的统计学脆弱性。资料与方法数据来源:检索2010年至今发表的随机对照试验(rct),检索Pubmed、Embase和MEDLINE。研究选择:纳入报告1:1分类、二分类结果的随机对照试验。如果文章不是随机对照试验,有两个以上的治疗组,包括体外/动物/尸体数据,并且不涉及转子间骨折,则排除。数据提取:发表和个体结局数据由三名独立审稿人收集。数据综合:FI和rFI计算为逆转每个结果的统计显著性所需的事件逆转数。FQ由FI除以研究样本量计算。根据结果类型进行亚组分析。结果共筛选文献232篇,纳入文献52篇,共370条结局。中位FI为5 (IQR 4-6), FQ为0.05 (IQR 0.032-0.078)。370个结果中有57个具有统计学意义,中位FI为3 (IQR 1-8)。313个结果无统计学意义,中位rFI为5 (IQR 4-6)。在127/370个结局中,失访患者数大于或等于FI(34.32%)。与骨不连或骨不连相关的结果最为脆弱,包括11个结果,中位FI为3 (IQR 2.5-5)。结论股骨粗隆间骨折固定的随机对照试验的结果是脆弱的,因为一些结果的逆转或维持随访可能会改变研究结果的意义。因此,建议将p值与FI和FQ指标一起常规报告,以便全面了解骨科创伤文献中结果的统计稳健性。证据水平。
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
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
13.00%
发文量
424
审稿时长
2 months
期刊介绍: "Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery" is a rich source of instruction and information for physicians in clinical practice and research in the extensive field of orthopaedics and traumatology. The journal publishes papers that deal with diseases and injuries of the musculoskeletal system from all fields and aspects of medicine. The journal is particularly interested in papers that satisfy the information needs of orthopaedic clinicians and practitioners. The journal places special emphasis on clinical relevance. "Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery" is the official journal of the German Speaking Arthroscopy Association (AGA).
期刊最新文献
The ulna osteotomy locking plate II in patients with ulnocarpal impaction syndrome: a retrospective evaluation. Tranexamic acid reduces transfusion requirements after pelvic osteotomy: a nationwide propensity score-matched analysis. Revision rate of large head diameter metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty: long-term results Influence of different preservation methods on the mechanical in vitro stability of bones: a comparative study using porcine metatarsals Medial open-wedge high tibial osteotomy alters sagittal tibial tubercle–trochlear groove distance
×
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:604180095
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