ReviewJournal of craniovertebral junction & spine
The statistical fragility of vertebroplasty outcomes: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials.
Review in Journal of craniovertebral junction & spine. 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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) on vertebroplasty are crucial for guiding the treatment of vertebral compression fractures, but their overlooked statistical fragility can undermine clinical reliability. Minor outcome changes may overturn significant findings, risking unreliable evidence, and impacting patient care. This study assessed the fragility of significant outcomes in vertebroplasty RCTs, hypothesizing high sensitivity to such changes. PubMed, Embase, and MEDLINE were searched for RCTs on vertebroplasty reporting dichotomous outcomes. The fragility index (FI) and reverse FI quantified the number of outcome reversals needed to change statistical significance for significant and nonsignificant results, respectively. The fragility quotient (FQ) was calculated as the FI divided by the study sample size. Subgroup analysis was conducted by outcome category. A total of 276 outcomes from RCTs were analyzed. The median FI was 5 (interquartile range [IQR]: 4-5), with a FQ of 0.053 (IQR: 0.019-0.088). Statistically significant outcomes (n = 36) had a median FI of 3 (IQR: 2-4) and FQ of 0.034 (IQR: 0.018-0.051), whereas nonsignificant outcomes (n = 240) showed a median FI of 5 (IQR: 4-5) and FQ of 0.062 (IQR: 0.021-0.088). Fracture-related outcomes were the most robust (FI: 5, FQ: 0.088), whereas cement leakage was the most fragile (FI: 3, FQ: 0.041). Pain outcomes had an FI of 5 (FQ: 0.062), and complications and vertebroplasty versus kyphoplasty outcomes were more robust (FI: 5, FQ: 0.013). Patients lost to follow-up exceeded the FI in 79% of outcomes. The statistical findings in vertebroplasty RCTs are fragile and warrant cautious interpretation. A small number of outcome reversals or consistent postoperative follow-up can shift the significance of the results. Standardized reporting of P values alongside FI and FQ metrics is recommended to help clinicians evaluate the robustness of study findings.
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.