A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

The statistical fragility of the distal fibula fracture literature: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials. | LitMetric

AI Article Synopsis

  • The study aimed to assess the statistical fragility of research on distal fibular fractures by using the fragility index (FI) and fragility quotient (FQ).
  • Researchers searched through clinical trials from 2000 to 2022 and analyzed 23 relevant studies, focusing on significant and non-significant outcomes to calculate FI and FQ values.
  • Findings suggest that the reliability of randomized controlled trials in this area may be overstated, as relying solely on p-values can be misleading; the study advocates for better reporting standards to enhance clinical interpretation of results.

Article Abstract

Background: The purpose of this study was to apply both the fragility index (FI) and fragility quotient (FQ) to evaluate the degree of statistical fragility in the distal fibular fracture (DFF) literature. We hypothesized that the dichotomous outcomes within the DFF literature are statistically fragile.

Methods: We performed a PubMed search for distal fibular fractures clinical trials from 2000 to 2022 reporting dichotomous outcomes. The FI of each outcome was calculated through the reversal of a single outcome event until significance was reversed. The FQ was calculated by dividing each fragility index by study sample size. The interquartile range (IQR) was also calculated for the FI and FQ.

Results: Of the 1158 articles screened, 23 met the search criteria, with six RCTs included for analysis. Forty-five outcome events with 5 significant (p < 0.05) outcomes and 40 nonsignificant (p ≥ 0.05) outcomes were identified. The overall FI and FQ was 5 (IQR 4-6) and 0.089 (IQR 0.061-0.107), respectively.

Conclusions: The randomized controlled trials in the peer-reviewed distal fibular fracture literature may not be as robust as previously thought, as incorporating statistical analyses solely on a P value threshold is misleading. Standardized reporting of the P value, FI and FQ can help the clinician reliably draw conclusions based on the fragility of outcome measures.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.injury.2023.03.022DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

distal fibular
12
statistical fragility
8
fragility distal
8
fracture literature
8
randomized controlled
8
controlled trials
8
fibular fracture
8
dff literature
8
dichotomous outcomes
8
fragility
5

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!