Fragility of Results in Ophthalmology Randomized Controlled Trials A Systematic Review

被引:42
作者
Shen, Carl [1 ]
Shamsudeen, Isabel [1 ]
Farrokhyar, Forough [2 ,3 ]
Sabri, Kourosh [1 ,4 ,5 ]
机构
[1] McMaster Univ, Dept Surg, Div Ophthalmol, Hamilton, ON, Canada
[2] McMaster Univ, Dept Surg & Hlth Res Methods, Hamilton, ON, Canada
[3] McMaster Univ, Dept Evidence & Impact, Hamilton, ON, Canada
[4] McMaster Univ, Dept Surg, McMaster Paediat Eye Res Grp, Hamilton, ON, Canada
[5] McMaster Univ, Dept Surg, McMaster Pediat Surg Res Collaborat, Hamilton, ON, Canada
关键词
STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT FINDINGS; MISSING DATA; P-VALUES; INDEX; SURGERY; QUALITY;
D O I
10.1016/j.ophtha.2017.11.015
中图分类号
R77 [眼科学];
学科分类号
100212 ;
摘要
Purpose: Evidence-based medicine is guided by our interpretation of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that address important clinical questions. Evaluation of the robustness of statistically significant outcomes adds a crucial element to the global assessment of trial findings. The purpose of this systematic review was to determine the robustness of ophthalmology RCTs through application of the Fragility Index (FI), a novel metric of the robustness of statistically significant outcomes. Design: Systematic review. Methods: A literature search (MEDLINE) was performed for all RCTs published in top ophthalmology journals and ophthalmology-related RCTs published in high-impact journals in the past 10 years. Two reviewers independently screened 1811 identified articles for inclusion if they (1) were a human ophthalmology-related trial, (2) had a 1:1 prospective study design, and (3) reported a statistically significant dichotomous outcome in the abstract. All relevant data, including outcome, P value, number of patients in each group, number of events in each group, number of patients lost to follow-up, and trial characteristics, were extracted. The FI of each RCT was calculated and multivariate regression applied to determine predictive factors. Results: The 156 trials had a median sample size of 91.5 (range, 13-2593) patients/eyes, and a median of 28 (range, 4-2217) events. The median FI of the included trials was 2 (range, 0-48), meaning that if 2 non-events were switched to events in the treatment group, the result would lose its statistical significance. A quarter of all trials had an FI of 1 or less, and 75% of trials had an FI of 6 or less. The FI was less than the number of missing data points in 52.6% of trials. Predictive factors for FI by multivariate regression included smaller P value (P<0.001), larger sample size (P = 0.001), larger number of events (P = 0.011), and journal impact factor (P = 0.029). Conclusions: In ophthalmology trials, statistically significant dichotomous results are often fragile, meaning that a difference of only a couple of events can change the statistical significance. An application of the FI in RCTs may aid in the interpretation of results and assessment of quality of evidence. (C) 2017 by the American Academy of Ophthalmology
引用
收藏
页码:642 / 648
页数:7
相关论文
共 30 条
  • [1] Three challenges described for identifying participants with missing data in trials reports, and potential solutions suggested to systematic reviewers
    Akl, Elie A.
    Kahale, Lara A.
    Ebrahim, Shanil
    Alonso-Coello, Pablo
    Schunemann, Holger J.
    Guyatt, Gordon H.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2016, 76 : 147 - 154
  • [2] Potential impact on estimated treatment effects of information lost to follow-up in randomised controlled trials (LOST-IT): systematic review
    Akl, Elie A.
    Briel, Matthias
    You, John J.
    Sun, Xin
    Johnston, Bradley C.
    Busse, Jason W.
    Mulla, Sohail
    Lamontagne, Francois
    Bassler, Dirk
    Vera, Claudio
    Alshurafa, Mohamad
    Katsios, Christina M.
    Zhou, Qi
    Cukierman-Yaffe, Tali
    Gangji, Azim
    Mills, Edward J.
    Walter, Stephen D.
    Cook, Deborah J.
    Schuenemann, Holger J.
    Altman, Douglas G.
    Guyatt, Gordon H.
    [J]. BMJ-BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2012, 344 : e2809
  • [3] Bacchetti P, 2005, AM J EPIDEMIOL, V161, P105, DOI 10.1093/aje/kwi014
  • [4] Current sample size conventions: Flaws, harms, and alternatives
    Bacchetti, Peter
    [J]. BMC MEDICINE, 2010, 8
  • [5] Evidence in Ophthalmology: Are We Doing Better?
    Bojikian, Karine D.
    Gupta, Divakar
    Dettori, Jason M.
    Dettori, Nathan J.
    Dettori, Joseph R.
    Chang, Peter
    Slabaugh, Mark A.
    [J]. OPHTHALMOLOGY, 2015, 122 (12) : 2584 - 2586
  • [6] The Fragility Index: a P-value in sheep's clothing?
    Carter, Rickey E.
    McKie, Paul M.
    Storlie, Curtis B.
    [J]. EUROPEAN HEART JOURNAL, 2017, 38 (05) : 346 - 348
  • [7] The pesty P value
    Casson, Robert J.
    [J]. CLINICAL AND EXPERIMENTAL OPHTHALMOLOGY, 2011, 39 (09) : 849 - 850
  • [8] How robust are clinical trials in heart failure?
    Docherty, Kieran F.
    Campbell, Ross T.
    Jhund, Pardeep S.
    Petrie, Mark C.
    McMurray, John J. V.
    [J]. EUROPEAN HEART JOURNAL, 2017, 38 (05) : 338 - +
  • [9] Reanalyses of Randomized Clinical Trial Data
    Ebrahim, Shanil
    Sohani, Zahra N.
    Montoya, Luis
    Agarwal, Arnav
    Thorlund, Kristian
    Mills, Edward J.
    Ioannidis, John P. A.
    [J]. JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 2014, 312 (10): : 1024 - 1032
  • [10] The fragility of statistically significant findings from randomized trials in spine surgery: a systematic survey
    Evaniew, Nathan
    Files, Carly
    Smith, Christopher
    Bhandari, Mohit
    Ghert, Michelle
    Walsh, Michael
    Devereaux, Philip J.
    Guyatt, Gordon
    [J]. SPINE JOURNAL, 2015, 15 (10) : 2188 - 2197