ArticleNeurosurgery2023
Robustness of Randomized Control Trials Supporting Current Neurosurgery Guidelines.
Article in Neurosurgery, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Fragility in cardiovascular randomized controlled trials with primary continuous outcomes (2018-2022) from multi-perspectives assessment: a cross-sectional survey.Annals of medicine · 2024Article
- Guidelines in Neurosurgery: a critical appraisal.Acta neurochirurgica · 2024Review
- The literacy barrier in clinical trial consents: a retrospective analysis.EClinicalMedicine · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundTreatment guidelines in neurosurgery are often based on evidence obtained from randomized controlled trials (RCTs).
objectiveTo evaluate the robustness of RCTs supporting current central nervous tumor and cerebrovascular disease guidelines by calculating their fragility index (FI)-the minimum number of patients needed to switch from an event to nonevent outcome to change significant trial primary outcome.
methodsWe analyzed RCTs referenced in the Congress of Neurological Surgeons and American Association of Neurological Surgeons guidelines on central nervous tumor and cerebrovascular disease management. Trial characteristics, finding of a statistically significant difference in the primary endpoint favoring the experimental intervention, the FI, and FI minus number lost to follow-up were assessed.
resultsOf 312 RCTs identified, 158 (50.6%) were published from 2000 to 2010 and 106 (34%) after 2010. Sixty-three trials (19.2%) were categorized as surgical trials, and the rest studied medical treatment (82.0%) or percutaneous intervention (8.33%). The trials had a median power of 80.0% (IQR 80.0-90.0). Of these, 120 trials were eligible for FI calculation. The median FI was 7.0 (IQR 2.0-16.25). Forty-four (36.6%) trials had FI ≤ 3 indicating very low robustness. After adjusting for covariates, recently published trials and trials studying percutaneous interventions were associated with significantly higher FI compared with older trials and trials comparing surgical approaches, respectively. Trials limited to single centers were associated with significantly lower FI.
conclusionTrials supporting current guidelines on neuro-oncological and neurovascular surgical interventions have low robustness. While the robustness of trials has improved over time, future guidelines must take into consideration this metric in their recommendations.
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.