A paper, made visible

The Fragility and Reliability of Conclusions of Anesthesia and Critical Care Randomized Trials With Statistically Significant Findings: A Systematic Review.

Abstract evidence3 comparisonsAutomated source matching · not expert reviewed
Quantitative results are not available to draw
  • Available sources do not yet support a numeric visual.

What the available source describes

Study context is available. A quantitative result is not established here.

Study context 1 · source-backed descriptions

No supported numerical result is available for this comparison. No supported numeric visual is available.

Who or what was studied

anesthesia and critical care randomized controlled trials

What was examined

statistically significant results

Inspect the source trail for this comparison
  1. Paper abstract ↗ · Abstractabstract · Matched to source text; not expert scientific review
    The median Fragility Index was 3 (interquartile range, 1-7), which means that adding three events to one of the trials treatment arms eliminated its statistical significance.
  2. Paper abstract ↗ · Abstractabstract · Matched to source text; not expert scientific review
    Our objectives were to calculate the Fragility Index of statistically significant results from randomized controlled trials of anesthesia and critical care interventions and to determine the frequency of distorted presentation of results or "spin".
  3. Paper abstract ↗ · Abstractabstract · Matched to source text; not expert scientific review
    CONCLUSIONS: Statistically significant results in anesthesia and critical care randomized controlled trials are often fragile, and study conclusions are frequently affected by spin.

Study context 2 · source-backed descriptions

No supported numerical result is available for this comparison. No supported numeric visual is available.

Who or what was studied

anesthesia and critical care randomized controlled trials

Inspect the source trail for this comparison
  1. Paper abstract ↗ · Abstractabstract · Matched to source text; not expert scientific review
    High spin was identified in 42% (n = 30) of negative randomized controlled trials, whereas 21% (n = 20) of positive randomized controlled trials provided recommendations.
  2. Paper abstract ↗ · Abstractabstract · Matched to source text; not expert scientific review
    CONCLUSIONS: Statistically significant results in anesthesia and critical care randomized controlled trials are often fragile, and study conclusions are frequently affected by spin.

Study context 3 · source-backed descriptions

No supported numerical result is available for this comparison. No supported numeric visual is available.

Who or what was studied

anesthesia and critical care randomized controlled trials

Outcome named in the source

levels of spin and recommendations

Inspect the source trail for this comparison
  1. Paper abstract ↗ · Abstractabstract · Matched to source text; not expert scientific review
    Lower levels of spin and recommendations were associated with publication in journals with high impact factors (p < 0.001 for both).
  2. Paper abstract ↗ · Abstractabstract · Matched to source text; not expert scientific review
    CONCLUSIONS: Statistically significant results in anesthesia and critical care randomized controlled trials are often fragile, and study conclusions are frequently affected by spin.
Short labels explain what the pictures mean.Automated extraction requires scientific judgment.