ArticleIntegrative medicine research2022
Robustness of meta-analysis results in Cochrane systematic reviews: A case for acupuncture trials.
Article in Integrative medicine research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Fragility index (FI) refers to the smallest value that change statistical significance of study results. Meta-analyses of Cochrane systematic reviews are considered as the best evidence for stake holders because they enable effect size estimation that cannot be derived by individual studies, particularly in the field of complementary and integrative medicine (CIM). Thus, this study aimed to evaluate robustness of meta-analysis in Cochrane systematic reviews of acupuncture, one of the most used CIM treatment, using FI of meta-analysis. Methods: Meta-analyses of acupuncture Cochrane systematic reviews with binary benefit outcome measures were searched in PubMed, Embase, and CENTRAL and subject to analysis. Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) or quasi RCTs adopted penetrating needles as treatment and compared with controls such as sham acupuncture, usual care, and active control were included. FI of meta-analyses was calculated in web (https://clinicalepidemio.fr/fragility_ma/); and fragility quotient (FQ) was calculated by dividing FI by total sample size of meta-analysis. Results: Of 248 retrieved studies, 12 Cochrane systematic reviews with 48 meta-analyses were analyzed. The median FI for statistically significant and non-significant meta-analyses was 7 [interquartile range: 3 - 12] and 6 [interquartile range: 3 - 10]. FQ was similar irrespective of statistical significance. Among controls, meta-analyses adopting sham acupuncture displayed the widest range of FI and FQ. Conclusion: Robustness of meta-analyses in Cochrane systematic reviews for acupuncture was similar irrespective of statistical significance. Impact of control intervention cannot be determined in this study. As FI enables intuitive interpretation, applications for CIM field can be useful.
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.