Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34703967›Full record

ArticleJB & JS open access

The Fragility of Significance in the Hip Arthroscopy Literature: A Systematic Review.

Robert L Parisien, David P Trofa, Michaela O'Connor, Brock Knapp, Emily J Curry, Paul Tornetta, T Sean Lynch, Xinning Li

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JB & JS open access. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Fragility Part I: a guide to understanding statistical power.Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA · 2022
    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.

Robert L ParisienMount Sinai Hospital, New York, NY.ORCID 0000-0002-7562-8375
David P TrofaColumbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, NY.ORCID 0000-0002-1550-9534
Michaela O'ConnorColumbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, NY.ORCID 0000-0002-0865-6771
Brock KnappBoston University School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts.ORCID 0000-0003-0730-1714
Emily J CurryBoston University School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts.ORCID 0000-0002-4038-215X
Paul TornettaBoston University School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts.ORCID 0000-0002-6448-8864
T Sean LynchColumbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, NY.ORCID 0000-0002-4436-3941
Xinning LiBoston University School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts.ORCID 0000-0002-7577-847X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The purpose of the present study was to perform the first examination of the utility of p values and the degree of statistical fragility in the hip arthroscopy literature by applying both the Fragility Index (FI) and the Fragility Quotient (FQ) to dichotomous comparative trials. We hypothesized that dichotomous comparative trials evaluating categorical outcomes in the hip arthroscopy literature are statistically fragile.

methodsThe PubMed and MEDLINE databases were queried from 2008-2018 for comparative studies evaluating dichotomous data in the hip arthroscopy literature. The present analysis included both randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-RCTs in which dichotomous data and associated p values were reported. Fragility analysis was performed with use of the Fisher exact test until an alteration of significance was determined.

resultsOf the 5,836 studies screened, 4,156 met the search criteria, with 52 comparative studies included for analysis. One hundred and fifty total outcome events with 33 significant (p < 0.05) outcomes and 117 nonsignificant (p ≥ 0.05) outcomes were identified. The final FI incorporating all 150 outcome events from 52 comparative studies was only 3.5 (interquartile range, 2 to 6), with an associated FQ of 0.032 (interquartile range, 0.017 to 0.063). Twenty-two studies (42.3%) either failed to report loss to follow-up (LTF) data or reported LTF greater than the overall FI of 3.5.

conclusionsThe peer-reviewed hip arthroscopy literature may not be as stable as previously thought, as the sole reliance on a threshold p value has proven misleading. We therefore recommend reporting of the FI and FQ, in conjunction with p values, to aid in the evaluation and interpretation of statistical robustness and quantitative significance in future comparative hip arthroscopy studies.

Identifiers

PMID34703967
PMCPMC8542173

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.