SynthesisDigestive diseases and sciences2026
Fragility of Randomized Controlled Trials for Fluid Resuscitation in Acute Pancreatitis.
Synthesis in Digestive diseases and sciences, 2026. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimMajority trials evaluating fluid resuscitation in acute pancreatitis (AP) are small and contradictory. Fragility score is the minimum number of participants in a randomized controlled trial (RCT) whose outcome would have to change from non-event to event to overturn the results. We planned to evaluate the fragility of RCTs evaluating fluid resuscitation in AP.
methodsAfter a systematic review of literature (CRD420261321080), fragility index (FI), reverse fragility index (RFI), and fragility quotient (FQ) were calculated. The results were labeled as fragile if FI ≤ 3, RFI ≤ 5, or FQ ≤ 0.10. Further sub-group comparisons of fragility scores were conducted as a secondary outcome.
resultsAmong these 13 included studies, 26 primary or key secondary outcomes were evaluated. The mean FI was 2.83 (2.08) among the studies with significant results. The mean RFI was 5.35 (2.59) among the studies with non-significant results. The median FQ was 0.023 (interquartile range 0.02 to 0.078). The FI was ≤ 3 for 9 (75%) outcomes with significant results. The RFI was ≤ 5 for 8 (57.1%) with non-significant results, 23 (88.5%) of the outcomes were fragile as defined by FQ ≤ 0.10, and 25 (96.2%) of the results were fragile by any definition. The mean FI 3 (2) was lower as compared to mean RFI 5.35 (2.59), p = 0.01.
conclusionMajority of the studies evaluating fluid resuscitation in AP are fragile. Larger sample size or alternate designs should be considered in future trials evaluating fluid resuscitation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42418073What 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.