ArticleJB & JS open access
The Fragility of Significance in the Hip Arthroscopy Literature: A Systematic Review.
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.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- The fragility of statistical findings in the intertrochanteric fracture fixation literature: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials.Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery · 2025Pooled it
- The Statistical Fragility of Marrow Stimulation for Cartilage Defects of the Knee: A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials.Cartilage · 2024Pooled it
- The Fragility of Statistical Findings in Meniscus Repair Literature: A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials.The Iowa orthopaedic journal · 2024Pooled it
- Predictors of Increased Fragility Index Scores in Surgical Randomized Controlled Trials: An Umbrella Review.World journal of surgery · 2023Pooled it
- The Statistical Fragility of Operative vs Nonoperative Management for Achilles Tendon Rupture: A Systematic Review of Comparative Studies.Foot & ankle international · 2022Pooled it
- Recurring low statistical robustness in orthopaedic surgery: A systematic review of 84 fragility index studies.Journal of experimental orthopaedics · 2025Review
- Kinematic vs. mechanical alignment in total knee arthroplasty: A statistical analysis of randomized control trials utilizing dichotomous and continuous fragility metrics.Journal of orthopaedics · 2025Review
- The Statistical Fragility of Lateral Extra-articular Tenodesis Research: A Systematic Review.Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine · 2024Article
- Fragility Part I: a guide to understanding statistical power.Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.