ArticleAnnals of medicine2024
Fragility in cardiovascular randomized controlled trials with primary continuous outcomes (2018-2022) from multi-perspectives assessment: a cross-sectional survey.
Article in Annals of medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
objectiveThis study aims to assess the robustness of cardiovascular disease randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with primary continuous outcomes from a clinical perspective, utilizing the concepts of continuous fragility index (CFI), reverse continuous fragility index (RCFI) and their corresponding quotients (CFQ, RCFQ).
methodsA cross-sectional study was conducted, searching PubMed for cardiovascular RCTs published between January 1, 2018, to December 31, 2022, in eight high-impact journals. Inclusion criteria were phase III or IV trials with 1:1 randomization, reporting at least one primary continuous outcome. Data analysis involved altering each outcome until achieving the reversal of significance (ɑ = 0.05) to determine the CFI or RCFI. The fragility quotients were then calculated by dividing the CFI or RCFI by the sample size, and Spearman's correlation assessed correlation analyses.
resultsOf 3983 records were screened, and 64 RCTs (76 outcomes) were included. The fragility index was analysed with 72 outcomes. The overall median CFI was 7, with an associated median CFQ of 0.032. Nonsignificant
conclusionsThe findings suggest that changing only a small number of interventions (median of 7) could alter outcome significance. Reporting the fragility index alongside
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.