The statistical fragility of arthroplasty versus fixation for femoral neck fractures: a systematic review of randomised controlled trials.

IF 1.3 4区 医学 Q3 ORTHOPEDICS
HIP International Pub Date : 2025-07-01 Epub Date: 2025-05-21 DOI:10.1177/11207000251343279
Auston R Locke, Avanish Yendluri, John J Corvi, John K Cordero, Michael N Megafu, Anya Wang, Steven J Yacovelli, David A Forsh, Calin S Moucha, Paul Tornetta, Robert L Parisien
{"title":"The statistical fragility of arthroplasty versus fixation for femoral neck fractures: a systematic review of randomised controlled trials.","authors":"Auston R Locke, Avanish Yendluri, John J Corvi, John K Cordero, Michael N Megafu, Anya Wang, Steven J Yacovelli, David A Forsh, Calin S Moucha, Paul Tornetta, Robert L Parisien","doi":"10.1177/11207000251343279","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>In the setting of femoral neck fractures, hip arthroplasty and internal fixation are considered as treatment interventions depending on the patient's age and fracture characteristics. In this study, we utilised the fragility index (FI), reverse fragility index (rFI), and fragility quotient (FQ) to evaluate the robustness of statistical outcomes reported in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating arthroplasty versus fixation in the treatment of femoral neck fractures.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Pubmed, Embase, and MEDLINE were queried from 2010 to present for RCTs reporting dichotomous outcomes where intervention arms were stratified as arthroplasty versus fixation for femoral neck fractures. The FI and rFI were calculated by outcome event reversals until the significance of the outcome was altered for significant and nonsignificant outcomes, respectively. FQ was calculated as the FI divided by the study sample size. Subgroup analysis was performed based on type of arthroplasty versus fixation and outcome type.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>985 RCTs were screened with 9 studies included in the analysis comprising 30 total outcomes. The median FI across all outcomes was 5 (IQR 2-10.75) with an associated FQ of 0.039 (IQR 0.019-0.059). For 14 significant outcomes, the median FI was 4.5 (IQR 2.5-12.5) with an associated FQ of 0.045 (IQR 0.020-0.098). Across 16 nonsignificant outcomes, the median rFI was 5.5 (IQR 2.0-8.5) with an associated FQ of 0.039 (IQR 0.017-0.049). In 11/30 (36.67%) of study outcomes, the number of patients lost to follow-up was greater than or equal to the median FI. The studies evaluating hip hemiarthroplasty versus fixation were the most fragile with a median FQ of 0.018 (IQR 0.014-0.069) across 10 outcomes from 4 RCTs. The 4 studies evaluating total hip arthroplasty versus fixation were the least fragile with a median FQ of 0.049 (0.024-0.059) across 15 outcomes. 1 study evaluated either THA or HA versus fixation and reported 5 outcomes with a median FQ of 0.039 (IQR 0.039-0.044). The RCTs assessing arthroplasty versus fixation for non-displaced fractures were found to be more fragile (median FQ 0.016) compared to the RCTs looking at displaced fractures (median FQ 0.042). By outcome type, the median FI's were 4 (IQR 2-11), 6 (IQR 2-6), 16 (IQR 10-16), and 5 (IQR 3.5-6.5) for failure/reoperation, complications/adverse events, mortality, and \"other\", respectively.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The statistical findings reported in RCTs comparing arthroplasty to fixation for femoral neck fractures exhibit considerable fragility, suggesting that minor changes in patient follow-up or outcome occurrences could significantly impact results. To enhance the interpretation of comparative trials in orthopaedic trauma we advocate for the routine inclusion of FI and FQ alongside <i>p</i>-values.</p>","PeriodicalId":12911,"journal":{"name":"HIP International","volume":" ","pages":"410-417"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"HIP International","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/11207000251343279","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/5/21 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: In the setting of femoral neck fractures, hip arthroplasty and internal fixation are considered as treatment interventions depending on the patient's age and fracture characteristics. In this study, we utilised the fragility index (FI), reverse fragility index (rFI), and fragility quotient (FQ) to evaluate the robustness of statistical outcomes reported in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating arthroplasty versus fixation in the treatment of femoral neck fractures.

Methods: Pubmed, Embase, and MEDLINE were queried from 2010 to present for RCTs reporting dichotomous outcomes where intervention arms were stratified as arthroplasty versus fixation for femoral neck fractures. The FI and rFI were calculated by outcome event reversals until the significance of the outcome was altered for significant and nonsignificant outcomes, respectively. FQ was calculated as the FI divided by the study sample size. Subgroup analysis was performed based on type of arthroplasty versus fixation and outcome type.

Results: 985 RCTs were screened with 9 studies included in the analysis comprising 30 total outcomes. The median FI across all outcomes was 5 (IQR 2-10.75) with an associated FQ of 0.039 (IQR 0.019-0.059). For 14 significant outcomes, the median FI was 4.5 (IQR 2.5-12.5) with an associated FQ of 0.045 (IQR 0.020-0.098). Across 16 nonsignificant outcomes, the median rFI was 5.5 (IQR 2.0-8.5) with an associated FQ of 0.039 (IQR 0.017-0.049). In 11/30 (36.67%) of study outcomes, the number of patients lost to follow-up was greater than or equal to the median FI. The studies evaluating hip hemiarthroplasty versus fixation were the most fragile with a median FQ of 0.018 (IQR 0.014-0.069) across 10 outcomes from 4 RCTs. The 4 studies evaluating total hip arthroplasty versus fixation were the least fragile with a median FQ of 0.049 (0.024-0.059) across 15 outcomes. 1 study evaluated either THA or HA versus fixation and reported 5 outcomes with a median FQ of 0.039 (IQR 0.039-0.044). The RCTs assessing arthroplasty versus fixation for non-displaced fractures were found to be more fragile (median FQ 0.016) compared to the RCTs looking at displaced fractures (median FQ 0.042). By outcome type, the median FI's were 4 (IQR 2-11), 6 (IQR 2-6), 16 (IQR 10-16), and 5 (IQR 3.5-6.5) for failure/reoperation, complications/adverse events, mortality, and "other", respectively.

Conclusions: The statistical findings reported in RCTs comparing arthroplasty to fixation for femoral neck fractures exhibit considerable fragility, suggesting that minor changes in patient follow-up or outcome occurrences could significantly impact results. To enhance the interpretation of comparative trials in orthopaedic trauma we advocate for the routine inclusion of FI and FQ alongside p-values.

股骨颈骨折关节置换术与固定术的统计学脆弱性:随机对照试验的系统回顾。
背景:在股骨颈骨折的情况下,根据患者的年龄和骨折特征,髋关节置换术和内固定被认为是治疗干预措施。在本研究中,我们使用脆弱性指数(FI)、反向脆弱性指数(rFI)和脆弱性商数(FQ)来评估随机对照试验(rct)中评估股骨颈骨折关节置换术与固定治疗的统计结果的稳健性。方法:从2010年至今,Pubmed、Embase和MEDLINE检索了报告两种结果的随机对照试验,其中干预臂分为关节置换术和股骨颈骨折固定。FI和rFI分别通过结果事件逆转来计算,直到结果的显著性分别改变为显著和不显著的结果。FQ计算为FI除以研究样本量。根据关节置换术与固定术的类型和结果类型进行亚组分析。结果:985项随机对照试验被筛选,9项研究纳入分析,包括30个总结果。所有结果的中位FI为5 (IQR 2-10.75),相关FQ为0.039 (IQR 0.019-0.059)。对于14个重要结局,中位FI为4.5 (IQR 2.5-12.5),相关FQ为0.045 (IQR 0.020-0.098)。在16个非显著性结局中,中位rFI为5.5 (IQR 2.0-8.5),相关FQ为0.039 (IQR 0.017-0.049)。在11/30(36.67%)的研究结果中,失去随访的患者数量大于或等于中位FI。评估髋关节置换术与固定术的研究是最脆弱的,在4项随机对照试验的10个结果中,中位FQ为0.018 (IQR为0.014-0.069)。评估全髋关节置换术与固定的4项研究是最不脆弱的,在15个结果中,中位FQ为0.049(0.024-0.059)。1项研究评估了THA或HA与固定的对比,报告了5个结果,中位FQ为0.039 (IQR为0.039-0.044)。与观察移位骨折的rct(中位FQ为0.042)相比,评估关节置换术与固定治疗非移位骨折的rct更脆弱(中位FQ为0.016)。根据结果类型,失败/再手术、并发症/不良事件、死亡率和“其他”的中位FI分别为4 (IQR 2-11)、6 (IQR 2-6)、16 (IQR 10-16)和5 (IQR 3.5-6.5)。结论:在比较股骨颈骨折关节置换术与固定术的随机对照试验中报道的统计结果显示出相当的脆弱性,表明患者随访或结局发生的微小变化可能显著影响结果。为了加强对骨科创伤比较试验的解释,我们提倡将FI和FQ与p值一起纳入常规研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
HIP International
HIP International 医学-整形外科
CiteScore
4.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
70
审稿时长
2 months
期刊介绍: HIP International is the official journal of the European Hip Society. It is the only international, peer-reviewed, bi-monthly journal dedicated to diseases of the hip. HIP International considers contributions relating to hip surgery, traumatology of the hip, prosthetic surgery, biomechanics, and basic sciences relating to the hip. HIP International invites reviews from leading specialists with the aim of informing its readers of current evidence-based best practice. The journal also publishes supplements containing proceedings of symposia, special meetings or articles of special educational merit. HIP International is divided into six independent sections led by editors of the highest scientific merit. These sections are: • Biomaterials • Biomechanics • Conservative Hip Surgery • Paediatrics • Primary and Revision Hip Arthroplasty • Traumatology
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信