Literature DB >> 31834616

The fragility index applied to liver-related trials.

Chase Meyer1, Trace E Heavener2, Matt Vassar1.   

Abstract

The goal of this manuscript was to apply the fragility index (FI), which is a statistically sound method to evaluate robustness of test results, to liver-related randomized clinical trials. The authors searched the ClinicalTrials.gov database with the following limitations: term "liver," recruitment completed, with results, interventional study type, last updated May 01, 2016, to May 01, 2017. Forty-eight trials were included and four had FI of 0. The median FI for trials moving from significance to non-significance was 6 (IQR 18; 2 to 20), while the median for trials moving from non-significance to significance was 5 (IQR 5; 4 to 9). The median number lost to follow up was 17 (IQR 42; 3 to 45). Of the 21 trials that showed statistical significance, the number lost to follow up was greater than the FI in 13 (61.90%) trials. Investigators of liver-related studies should consider adding the FI to evaluate their work.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Fragility index; Hepatology; Methodology; P-value; Randomized controlled trial

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 31834616     DOI: 10.1007/s12664-019-00996-x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Indian J Gastroenterol        ISSN: 0254-8860


  9 in total

1.  The unit fragility index: an additional appraisal of "statistical significance" for a contrast of two proportions.

Authors:  A R Feinstein
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  1990       Impact factor: 6.437

2.  The Fragility Index: a P-value in sheep's clothing?

Authors:  Rickey E Carter; Paul M McKie; Curtis B Storlie
Journal:  Eur Heart J       Date:  2017-02-01       Impact factor: 29.983

Review 3.  The statistical significance of randomized controlled trial results is frequently fragile: a case for a Fragility Index.

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

4.  "P < 0.05" Might Not Mean What You Think: American Statistical Association Clarifies P Values.

Authors:  Beatrice Grabowski
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2016-08-10       Impact factor: 13.506

Review 5.  The Fragility Index in Multicenter Randomized Controlled Critical Care Trials.

Authors:  Elliott E Ridgeon; Paul J Young; Rinaldo Bellomo; Marta Mucchetti; Rosalba Lembo; Giovanni Landoni
Journal:  Crit Care Med       Date:  2016-07       Impact factor: 7.598

Review 6.  How robust are clinical trials in heart failure?

Authors:  Kieran F Docherty; Ross T Campbell; Pardeep S Jhund; Mark C Petrie; John J V McMurray
Journal:  Eur Heart J       Date:  2017-02-01       Impact factor: 29.983

Review 7.  Trial registry searches for randomized controlled trials of new drugs required registry-specific adaptation to achieve adequate sensitivity.

Authors:  Marco Knelangen; Elke Hausner; Maria-Inti Metzendorf; Sibylle Sturtz; Siw Waffenschmidt
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2017-11-11       Impact factor: 6.437

8.  The fragility of statistically significant findings from randomized trials in spine surgery: a systematic survey.

Authors:  Nathan Evaniew; Carly Files; Christopher Smith; Mohit Bhandari; Michelle Ghert; Michael Walsh; Philip J Devereaux; Gordon Guyatt
Journal:  Spine J       Date:  2015-06-11       Impact factor: 4.166

9.  The American Statistical Association statement on P-values explained.

Authors:  Lakshmi Narayana Yaddanapudi
Journal:  J Anaesthesiol Clin Pharmacol       Date:  2016 Oct-Dec
  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.