动脉瘤性蛛网膜下腔出血干预措施随机对照试验中的脆性指数:系统综述。

IF 2.1 Q3 CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE Journal of the Intensive Care Society Pub Date : 2023-12-28 eCollection Date: 2024-05-01 DOI:10.1177/17511437231218199
Aravind V Ramesh, Henry Np Munby, Matt Thomas
{"title":"动脉瘤性蛛网膜下腔出血干预措施随机对照试验中的脆性指数:系统综述。","authors":"Aravind V Ramesh, Henry Np Munby, Matt Thomas","doi":"10.1177/17511437231218199","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Fragility analysis supplements the <i>p</i>-value and risk of bias assessment in the interpretation of results of randomised controlled trials. In this systematic review we determine the fragility index (FI) and fragility quotient (FQ) of randomised trials in aneurysmal subarachnoid haemorrhage.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This is a systematic review registered with PROSPERO (ID: CRD42020173604). Randomised controlled trials in adults with aneurysmal subarachnoid haemorrhage were analysed if they reported a statistically significant primary outcome of mortality, function (e.g. modified Rankin Scale), vasospasm or delayed neurological deterioration.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We identified 4825 records with 18 randomised trials selected for analysis. The median fragility index was 2.5 (inter-quartile range 0.25-5) and the median fragility quotient was 0.015 (IQR 0.02-0.039). Five of 20 trial outcomes (25%) had a fragility index of 0. In seven trials (39.0%), the number of participants lost to follow-up was greater than or equal to the fragility index. Only 16.7% of trials are at low risk of bias.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Randomised controlled trial evidence supporting management of aneurysmal subarachnoid haemorrhage is weaker than indicated by conventional analysis using <i>p</i>-values alone. Increased use of fragility analysis by clinicians and researchers could improve the translation of evidence to practice.</p>","PeriodicalId":39161,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the Intensive Care Society","volume":"25 2","pages":"164-170"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11086711/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The fragility index in randomised controlled trials of interventions for aneurysmal subarachnoid haemorrhage: A systematic review.\",\"authors\":\"Aravind V Ramesh, Henry Np Munby, Matt Thomas\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/17511437231218199\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Fragility analysis supplements the <i>p</i>-value and risk of bias assessment in the interpretation of results of randomised controlled trials. In this systematic review we determine the fragility index (FI) and fragility quotient (FQ) of randomised trials in aneurysmal subarachnoid haemorrhage.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This is a systematic review registered with PROSPERO (ID: CRD42020173604). Randomised controlled trials in adults with aneurysmal subarachnoid haemorrhage were analysed if they reported a statistically significant primary outcome of mortality, function (e.g. modified Rankin Scale), vasospasm or delayed neurological deterioration.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We identified 4825 records with 18 randomised trials selected for analysis. The median fragility index was 2.5 (inter-quartile range 0.25-5) and the median fragility quotient was 0.015 (IQR 0.02-0.039). Five of 20 trial outcomes (25%) had a fragility index of 0. In seven trials (39.0%), the number of participants lost to follow-up was greater than or equal to the fragility index. Only 16.7% of trials are at low risk of bias.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Randomised controlled trial evidence supporting management of aneurysmal subarachnoid haemorrhage is weaker than indicated by conventional analysis using <i>p</i>-values alone. Increased use of fragility analysis by clinicians and researchers could improve the translation of evidence to practice.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":39161,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of the Intensive Care Society\",\"volume\":\"25 2\",\"pages\":\"164-170\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-12-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11086711/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of the Intensive Care Society\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/17511437231218199\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/5/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the Intensive Care Society","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17511437231218199","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/5/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:在解释随机对照试验结果时,脆性分析是对P值和偏倚风险评估的补充。在本系统综述中,我们确定了动脉瘤性蛛网膜下腔出血随机试验的脆性指数(FI)和脆性商数(FQ):这是一篇在 PROSPERO(ID:CRD42020173604)上注册的系统综述。如果成人动脉瘤性蛛网膜下腔出血的随机对照试验报告了死亡率、功能(如修正的 Rankin 量表)、血管痉挛或延迟神经功能恶化等具有统计学意义的主要结果,则对这些试验进行分析:我们确定了 4825 份记录,并选择了 18 项随机试验进行分析。脆性指数中位数为 2.5(四分位数间距为 0.25-5),脆性商数中位数为 0.015(IQR 为 0.02-0.039)。在20项试验结果中,有5项(25%)的脆性指数为0。在7项试验(39.0%)中,失去随访的参与者人数大于或等于脆性指数。只有16.7%的试验存在低偏倚风险:结论:支持动脉瘤性蛛网膜下腔出血治疗的随机对照试验证据弱于仅使用P值进行的传统分析。临床医生和研究人员更多地使用脆性分析可改善证据向实践的转化。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
The fragility index in randomised controlled trials of interventions for aneurysmal subarachnoid haemorrhage: A systematic review.

Background: Fragility analysis supplements the p-value and risk of bias assessment in the interpretation of results of randomised controlled trials. In this systematic review we determine the fragility index (FI) and fragility quotient (FQ) of randomised trials in aneurysmal subarachnoid haemorrhage.

Methods: This is a systematic review registered with PROSPERO (ID: CRD42020173604). Randomised controlled trials in adults with aneurysmal subarachnoid haemorrhage were analysed if they reported a statistically significant primary outcome of mortality, function (e.g. modified Rankin Scale), vasospasm or delayed neurological deterioration.

Results: We identified 4825 records with 18 randomised trials selected for analysis. The median fragility index was 2.5 (inter-quartile range 0.25-5) and the median fragility quotient was 0.015 (IQR 0.02-0.039). Five of 20 trial outcomes (25%) had a fragility index of 0. In seven trials (39.0%), the number of participants lost to follow-up was greater than or equal to the fragility index. Only 16.7% of trials are at low risk of bias.

Conclusion: Randomised controlled trial evidence supporting management of aneurysmal subarachnoid haemorrhage is weaker than indicated by conventional analysis using p-values alone. Increased use of fragility analysis by clinicians and researchers could improve the translation of evidence to practice.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of the Intensive Care Society
Journal of the Intensive Care Society Nursing-Critical Care Nursing
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
45
期刊介绍: The Journal of the Intensive Care Society (JICS) is an international, peer-reviewed journal that strives to disseminate clinically and scientifically relevant peer-reviewed research, evaluation, experience and opinion to all staff working in the field of intensive care medicine. Our aim is to inform clinicians on the provision of best practice and provide direction for innovative scientific research in what is one of the broadest and most multi-disciplinary healthcare specialties. While original articles and systematic reviews lie at the heart of the Journal, we also value and recognise the need for opinion articles, case reports and correspondence to guide clinically and scientifically important areas in which conclusive evidence is lacking. The style of the Journal is based on its founding mission statement to ‘instruct, inform and entertain by encompassing the best aspects of both tabloid and broadsheet''.
期刊最新文献
Delivery of evidence-based critical care practices across the United Kingdom: A UK-wide multi-site service evaluation in adult units. In vivo assessment of a modification of a domiciliary ventilator which reduces oxygen consumption in mechanically ventilated patients. Management of adult mechanically ventilated patients: A UK-wide survey. Small volume fluid resuscitation and supplementation with 20% albumin versus buffered crystalloids in adults with septic shock: A protocol for a randomised feasibility trial. Should viscoelastic testing be a standard point-of-care test on all intensive care units?
×
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