SynthesisKnee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA2020
Strength in numbers? The fragility index of studies from the Scandinavian knee ligament registries.
Synthesis in Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 23 citations in OpenAlex.
- The reverse fragility index: RCTs reporting non-significant differences in failure rates between hamstring and bone-patellar tendon-bone autografts have fragile results.Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA · 2023Pooled it
- Predictors of Increased Fragility Index Scores in Surgical Randomized Controlled Trials: An Umbrella Review.World journal of surgery · 2023Pooled it
- Recurring low statistical robustness in orthopaedic surgery: A systematic review of 84 fragility index studies.Journal of experimental orthopaedics · 2025Review
- Scoping Review on ACL Surgery and Registry Data.Current reviews in musculoskeletal medicine · 2022Article
- Statistical Fragility of Single-Row Versus Double-Row Anchoring for Rotator Cuff Repair: A Systematic Review of Comparative Studies.Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine · 2022Review
- The Statistical Fragility of Single-Bundle vs Double-Bundle Autografts for ACL Reconstruction: A Systematic Review of Comparative Studies.Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine · 2021Review
- Fragility Index and Fragility Quotient in Randomized Controlled Trials on Corticosteroids in ARDS Due to COVID-19 and Non-COVID-19 Etiology.Journal of clinical medicine · 2021Review
- How Robust are the Evidences that Formulate Surviving Sepsis Guidelines? An Analysis of Fragility and Reverse Fragility of Randomized Controlled Trials that were Referred in these Guidelines.Indian journal of critical care medicine : peer-reviewed, official publication of Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine · 2021Article
- How fragile are Mediterranean diet interventions? A research-on-research study of randomised controlled trials.BMJ nutrition, prevention & health · 2021Article
- Fragility Index in Cardiovascular Randomized Controlled Trials.Circulation. Cardiovascular quality and outcomes · 2019Review
- The Fragility of Significance in the Hip Arthroscopy Literature: A Systematic Review.JB & JS open accessArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe fragility index (FI) is a metric to evaluate the robustness of statistically significant results. It describes the number of patients who would need to change from a non-event to an event to change a result from significant to non-significant. This systematic survey aimed to evaluate the feasibility of applying the FI to findings related to anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction in the Scandinavian knee ligament registries.
methodsThe PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library and AMED databases were searched. Studies from the Scandinavian knee ligament registers were eligible if they reported a statistically significant result (p < 0.05) for any of the following dichotomous outcomes; ACL revision, contralateral ACL reconstruction or the presence of postoperative knee laxity. Only studies with a two-arm comparative analysis were included. Eligibility assessment, data extraction and quality assessment were performed by two independent reviewers. The dichotomous analyses were stratified according to the grouping variable for the two comparative arms as follows; age, patient sex, activity at injury, graft choice, drilling technique, graft fixation, single- versus double-bundle, concomitant cartilage injury and country. The two-sided Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the FI of all statistically significant analyses.
resultsFrom 158 identified studies, 13 studies were included. They reported statistical significance for a total of 56 dichotomous analyses, of which all but two had been determined by a time-to-event analysis. The median sample size for the arms was 5540 (range 92-38,666). The mean FI for all 56 dichotomous analyses was 80.6 (median 34.5), which means that a mean of 80.6 patients were needed to change outcome status to generate a non-significant result instead of a significant one. Seventeen analyses (30.4%) immediately became non-significant when performing the two-sided Fisher's exact test and, therefore, had an FI of 0. The analyses related to age were the most robust, with a mean FI of 178.5 (median 116, range 1-1089). The mean FI of the other grouping variables ranged from 0.5 to 48.0.
conclusionThere was large variability in the FI in analyses from the Scandinavian knee ligament registries and almost one third of the analyses had an FI of zero. The FI is a rough measurement of robustness when applied to registry studies, however, future studies are needed to determine the most appropriate metric for robustness in registry studies. The use of the FI can provide clinicians with a deeper understanding of significant study results and promotes an evidence-based approach in the clinical care of patients. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Systematic review of prospective cohort studies, Level II.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.