SynthesisHernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery2026
Fragility of randomized clinical trials comparing surgical approaches for inguinal hernia repair: a systematic review.
Synthesis in Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery, 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionRandomized clinical trials (RCTs) remain the reference standard for estimating causal effects of surgical interventions when appropriately designed and conducted. However, P values alone do not describe how sensitive a dichotomous statistical-significance classification is to small changes in outcome counts. The Fragility Index (FI) and Reverse Fragility Index (RFI) are post hoc descriptive metrics that quantify the number of outcome-status changes required to alter statistical significance. This study aimed to evaluate FI/RFI for inguinal hernia repair (IHR) RCT findings, assess individual complication endpoints, and examine associations with sample size and conflict-of-interest reporting.
methodsEmbase, PubMed, LILACS, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched through June 2025 for RCTs comparing open, laparoscopic, or robotic inguinal hernia repair with dichotomous primary outcomes. FI, RFI, and sample-size-adjusted quotients were calculated from reconstructed 2 × 2 tables using two-sided Fisher exact tests. Individual complications and associations with trial characteristics were analyzed.
resultsForty-two RCTs comprising 14,505 patients and 44 primary comparisons were included; all eligible comparisons evaluated laparoscopic versus open repair. Twelve comparisons were significant, with a median FI of 4 (IQR, 3-5.25); 4 (33.3%) had an FI of 3 or less. Among 31 nonsignificant comparisons, the median RFI was 5 (IQR, 3.5-6.5). All 4 significant individual-complication results had an FI of 3 or less (median, 1). Significance classification differed between reported and recalculated P values in 4 of 78 extracted comparisons. FI was not significantly correlated with sample size.
conclusionsRandomized trials remain central to comparative evidence in inguinal hernia repair. FI and RFI provide complementary post hoc context regarding how many outcome-status changes would alter a dichotomous significance classification and should be interpreted alongside prespecified trial design, effect estimates, confidence intervals, P values, sample size, missing data, and clinical relevance.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42853338What 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.