Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32756927›Full record

ArticleJAMA network open2020

Application of the Reverse Fragility Index to Statistically Nonsignificant Randomized Clinical Trial Results.

Muhammad Shahzeb Khan, Gregg C Fonarow, Tim Friede, Noman Lateef, Safi U Khan, Stefan D Anker, Frank E Harrell, Javed Butler

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA network open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 49 papers, 17 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
49citing papers in PubMed, 17 pooled it
7.7field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

49 citing papers in PubMed, 17 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 103 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. The fragility index and reverse fragility index of FDA investigational device exemption trials in spinal fusion surgery: a systematic review.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2024
    Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. The statistical fragility of intramedullary reaming in tibial nail fixation: a systematic review.European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society · 2023
    Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. Assessing the robustness of COVID-19 vaccine efficacy trials: systematic review and meta-analysis, January 2023.Euro surveillance : bulletin Europeen sur les maladies transmissibles = European communicable disease bulletin · 2023
    Pooled it
  16. Pooled it
  17. Pooled it
  18. Article
  19. Reporting of second-generationContemporary clinical trials communications · 2026
    Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 7 institutions in 2 countries.

Muhammad Shahzeb KhanDepartment of Medicine, Cook County Health Sciences, Chicago, Illinois.
Gregg C FonarowDivision of Cardiology, Ronald Reagan-UCLA (University of California, Los Angeles) Medical Center, Los Angeles.
Tim FriedeDepartment of Medical Statistics, University Medical Center Goettingen, Goettingen, Germany.
Noman LateefDepartment of Medicine, Creighton University, Omaha, Nebraska.
Safi U KhanDepartment of Medicine, West Virginia University, Morgantown.
Stefan D AnkerDepartment of Cardiology, and Berlin Institute of Health Center for Regenerative Therapies, German Centre for Cardiovascular Research partner site Berlin; Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Frank E HarrellDepartment of Biostatistics, Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, Tennessee.
Javed ButlerDepartment of Medicine, University of Mississippi Medical Center, Jackson.
Cook County Health and Hospitals System · USCreighton University · USGerman Centre for Cardiovascular Research · DEJackson Memorial Hospital · USRonald Reagan UCLA Medical Center · USVanderbilt University · USWest Virginia University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Interpreting randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and their clinical relevance is challenging when P values are either marginally above or below the P = .05 threshold. Objective: To use the concept of reverse fragility index (RFI) to provide a measure of confidence in the neutrality of RCT results when assessed from the clinical perspective. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this cross-sectional study, a MEDLINE search was conducted for RCTs published from January 1, 2013, to December 31, 2018, in JAMA, the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), and The Lancet. Eligible studies were phase 3 and 4 trials with 1:1 randomization and statistically nonsignificant binary primary end points. Data analysis was performed from August 1, 2019, to August 31, 2019. Exposures: Single vs multicenter enrollment, total number of events, private vs government funding, placebo vs active control, and time to event vs frequency data. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the median RFI with interquartile range (IQR) at the P = .05 threshold. Secondary outcomes were the number of RCTs in which the number of participants lost to follow-up was greater than the RFI; the median RFI with IQR at different P value thresholds; the median reverse fragility quotient with IQR; and the correlation between sample sizes, number of events, and P values of the RCT and RFI. Results: Of the 167 RCTs included, 76 (46%) were published in the NEJM, 50 (30%) in JAMA, and 41 (24%) in The Lancet. The median (IQR) sample size was 970 (470-3427) participants, and the median (IQR) number of events was 251 (105-570). The median (IQR) RFI at the P = .05 threshold was 8 (5-13). Fifty-seven RCTs (34%) had an RFI of 5 or lower, and in 68 RCTs (41%) the number of participants lost to follow-up was greater than the RFI. Trials with P values ranging from P = .06 to P = .10 had a median (IQR) RFI of 3 (2-4). When compared, median (IQR) RFIs were not statistically significant for single-center vs multicenter enrollment (5 [4-13] vs 8 [5-13]; P = .41), private vs government-funded studies (9 [5-13] vs 8 [5-13]; P = .34), and time-to-event primary end points vs frequency data (9 [5-14] vs 7 [4-13]; P = .43). The median (IQR) RFI at the P = .01 threshold was 12 (7-19) and at the P = .005 threshold was 14 (9-21). Conclusions and Relevance: This cross-sectional study found that a relatively small number of events (median of 8) had to change to move the primary end point of an RCT from nonsignificant to statistically significant. These findings emphasize the nuance required when interpreting trial results that did not meet prespecified significance thresholds.

Indexed as

Models, StatisticalCross-Sectional StudiesHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicSample Size

Identifiers

PMID32756927
PMCPMC7407075
OpenAlexW3047098839

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.