Muhammad Shahzeb Khan1, Rohan Kumar Ochani2, Asim Shaikh2, Muhammad Shariq Usman2, Naser Yamani1, Safi U Khan3, M Hassan Murad4, John Mandrola5, Rami Doukky6, Richard A Krasuski7. 1. Department of Internal Medicine, John H. Stroger Jr. Hospital of Cook County, Chicago, IL (M.S.K., N.Y.). 2. Department of Internal Medicine, Dow University of Health Sciences, Karachi, Pakistan (R.K.O., A.S., M.S.U.). 3. Department of Internal Medicine, West Virginia University (S.U.K.). 4. Evidence-based Practice Center, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN (M.H.M.). 5. Baptist Medical Center, Louisville, KY (J.M.). 6. Division of Cardiology, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, IL (R.D.). 7. Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, Duke University Health System, Durham, NC (R.A.K.).
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Efficacy of an intervention is commonly evaluated using P values, in addition to effect size measures such as absolute risk reduction, relative risk reduction, and numbers needed to treat. However, these measures are not always intuitive to clinicians. The fragility index (FI) is a more intuitive number that can facilitate interpretation but can only be used with binary outcomes. FI is the minimum number of patients who must be moved from the nonevent group to the event group to turn a significant result nonsignificant. In this retrospective analysis, we assessed the robustness of cardiovascular randomized controlled trials (RCTs), which report a positive (statistically significant) primary outcome by using the FI. METHODS AND RESULTS: We searched Medline from 2007 to 2017 to identify cardiovascular RCTs published in 6 high impact journals (The Lancet, New England Journal of Medicine, Journal of the American Medical Association, Circulation, Journal of the American College of Cardiology and European Heart Journal). Only RCTs with sample sizes >500 and a 2-by-2 factorial design or dichotomous primary outcomes were selected. FI was calculated using a defined approach. Among the cohort of 123 RCTs that met inclusion criteria, median FI was 13 (interquartile range, 5-26). In 28 trials (22.8%), FI ranged between 1 and 4. In 37 trials (30.1%), number of patients lost to follow-up was higher than the FI. Pharmaceutical interventions had higher FI compared with other interventions, FI=19 (7-52; P=0.002). Median FI varied according to subspecialty (electrophysiology=2; heart failure=11; interventional cardiology=8; P=0.020) and multiregional RCTs had higher FI=22 (12-53.25; P=0.023). FI did not differ based on risk of bias indicators, funding, or publication year. CONCLUSIONS: Considerable variations in FI were observed among cardiovascular trials, suggesting the need for careful interpretation of results, particularly when number of patients lost to follow-up exceeds FI.
BACKGROUND: Efficacy of an intervention is commonly evaluated using P values, in addition to effect size measures such as absolute risk reduction, relative risk reduction, and numbers needed to treat. However, these measures are not always intuitive to clinicians. The fragility index (FI) is a more intuitive number that can facilitate interpretation but can only be used with binary outcomes. FI is the minimum number of patients who must be moved from the nonevent group to the event group to turn a significant result nonsignificant. In this retrospective analysis, we assessed the robustness of cardiovascular randomized controlled trials (RCTs), which report a positive (statistically significant) primary outcome by using the FI. METHODS AND RESULTS: We searched Medline from 2007 to 2017 to identify cardiovascular RCTs published in 6 high impact journals (The Lancet, New England Journal of Medicine, Journal of the American Medical Association, Circulation, Journal of the American College of Cardiology and European Heart Journal). Only RCTs with sample sizes >500 and a 2-by-2 factorial design or dichotomous primary outcomes were selected. FI was calculated using a defined approach. Among the cohort of 123 RCTs that met inclusion criteria, median FI was 13 (interquartile range, 5-26). In 28 trials (22.8%), FI ranged between 1 and 4. In 37 trials (30.1%), number of patients lost to follow-up was higher than the FI. Pharmaceutical interventions had higher FI compared with other interventions, FI=19 (7-52; P=0.002). Median FI varied according to subspecialty (electrophysiology=2; heart failure=11; interventional cardiology=8; P=0.020) and multiregional RCTs had higher FI=22 (12-53.25; P=0.023). FI did not differ based on risk of bias indicators, funding, or publication year. CONCLUSIONS: Considerable variations in FI were observed among cardiovascular trials, suggesting the need for careful interpretation of results, particularly when number of patients lost to follow-up exceeds FI.
Authors: Moin Khan; Nathan Evaniew; Mark Gichuru; Anthony Habib; Olufemi R Ayeni; Asheesh Bedi; Michael Walsh; P J Devereaux; Mohit Bhandari Journal: Am J Sports Med Date: 2016-12-14 Impact factor: 6.202
Authors: Michael Walsh; Sadeesh K Srinathan; Daniel F McAuley; Marko Mrkobrada; Oren Levine; Christine Ribic; Amber O Molnar; Neil D Dattani; Andrew Burke; Gordon Guyatt; Lehana Thabane; Stephen D Walter; Janice Pogue; P J Devereaux Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2014-02-05 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: Alvise Berti; Divi Cornec; Jose R Medina Inojosa; Eric L Matteson; M Hassan Murad Journal: Semin Arthritis Rheum Date: 2018-01-06 Impact factor: 5.532
Authors: Catarina M Dos Santos; Luísa Prada; Cláudio David; João Costa; Joaquim J Ferreira; Fausto J Pinto; Daniel Caldeira Journal: TH Open Date: 2021-04-14
Authors: Carl L Herndon; Kyle L McCormick; Anastasia Gazgalis; Elise C Bixby; Matthew M Levitsky; Alexander L Neuwirth Journal: Arthroplast Today Date: 2021-10-11
Authors: Muhammad Shariq Usman; Muhammad Shahzeb Khan; Gregg C Fonarow; Stephen J Greene; Tim Friede; Muthiah Vaduganathan; Gerasimos Filippatos; Andrew J Stewart Coats; Stefan D Anker; Javed Butler Journal: ESC Heart Fail Date: 2022-01-13