The Statistical Fragility of Randomized Controlled Trials in Kidney Stone Management: An Analysis of AUA and EAU Guidelines.

IF 2.1 3区 医学 Q2 UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY
Esther Kim, Daniel Wang, Nathan Nguyen, Micah Levy, Christopher Connors, Juan Arroyave Villada, Modassar Awan, Osama Zaytoun, Herik Acosta-Gonzalez, Michael A Palese
{"title":"The Statistical Fragility of Randomized Controlled Trials in Kidney Stone Management: An Analysis of AUA and EAU Guidelines.","authors":"Esther Kim, Daniel Wang, Nathan Nguyen, Micah Levy, Christopher Connors, Juan Arroyave Villada, Modassar Awan, Osama Zaytoun, Herik Acosta-Gonzalez, Michael A Palese","doi":"10.1016/j.urology.2025.05.039","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To evaluate the statistical fragility of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) outcomes cited by the American Urological Association (AUA) and European Association of Urology (EAU) nephrolithiasis management guidelines using the fragility index (FI), reverse fragility index (rFI), and fragility quotient (FQ).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Two-armed RCTs with at least one dichotomous outcome cited by the AUA and EAU were identified. FI was calculated using a 2x2 contingency table, adjusting events until statistical significance was lost (p≥0.05). rFI was determined by modifying nonsignificant outcomes until significance was achieved (p<0.05). FQ was calculated by dividing FI by sample size.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 1210 outcomes from 138 RCTs were analyzed. The median FI for AUA-cited studies was 4 (IQR 3-6) with an FQ of 0.05 (0.03-0.09), while for EAU-cited studies, median FI was 5 (3-7) with an FQ of 0.04 (0.02-0.06). Over 62% of outcomes required fewer than five event reversals to alter significance. No significant difference in FI (p=0.375) or FQ (p=0.080) was found between AUA and EAU studies. With respect to median publication year, FI significantly increased in EAU studies published after 2015 (p=0.001), and FQ in AUA studies was significantly higher after 2006 (p=0.004). In 11.8% of AUA and 14.2% of EAU outcomes, loss to follow-up exceeded the FI.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>RCTs cited in AUA and EAU nephrolithiasis guidelines demonstrate statistical fragility. The findings underscore the limitations of p-values as a sole measure of evidence strength. Future research should incorporate FI, rFI, and FQ to enhance clinical decision-making.</p>","PeriodicalId":23415,"journal":{"name":"Urology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Urology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2025.05.039","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate the statistical fragility of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) outcomes cited by the American Urological Association (AUA) and European Association of Urology (EAU) nephrolithiasis management guidelines using the fragility index (FI), reverse fragility index (rFI), and fragility quotient (FQ).

Methods: Two-armed RCTs with at least one dichotomous outcome cited by the AUA and EAU were identified. FI was calculated using a 2x2 contingency table, adjusting events until statistical significance was lost (p≥0.05). rFI was determined by modifying nonsignificant outcomes until significance was achieved (p<0.05). FQ was calculated by dividing FI by sample size.

Results: A total of 1210 outcomes from 138 RCTs were analyzed. The median FI for AUA-cited studies was 4 (IQR 3-6) with an FQ of 0.05 (0.03-0.09), while for EAU-cited studies, median FI was 5 (3-7) with an FQ of 0.04 (0.02-0.06). Over 62% of outcomes required fewer than five event reversals to alter significance. No significant difference in FI (p=0.375) or FQ (p=0.080) was found between AUA and EAU studies. With respect to median publication year, FI significantly increased in EAU studies published after 2015 (p=0.001), and FQ in AUA studies was significantly higher after 2006 (p=0.004). In 11.8% of AUA and 14.2% of EAU outcomes, loss to follow-up exceeded the FI.

Conclusion: RCTs cited in AUA and EAU nephrolithiasis guidelines demonstrate statistical fragility. The findings underscore the limitations of p-values as a sole measure of evidence strength. Future research should incorporate FI, rFI, and FQ to enhance clinical decision-making.

肾结石管理随机对照试验的统计脆弱性:对AUA和EAU指南的分析。
目的:利用脆弱性指数(FI)、反向脆弱性指数(rFI)和脆弱性商数(FQ)评价美国泌尿外科协会(AUA)和欧洲泌尿外科协会(EAU)肾结石管理指南引用的随机对照试验(rct)结果的统计脆弱性。方法:选取至少有一个被AUA和EAU引用的二元结局的双臂随机对照试验。FI采用2x2列联表计算,调整事件直到失去统计学意义(p≥0.05)。rFI是通过修改不显著的结果来确定的,直到达到显著性(结果:来自138个随机对照试验的1210个结果被分析。aua被引研究的FI中位数为4 (IQR 3 ~ 6), FQ为0.05 (0.03 ~ 0.09);eau -被引研究的FI中位数为5 (3 ~ 7),FQ为0.04(0.02 ~ 0.06)。超过62%的结果需要少于5次事件逆转才能改变显著性。在AUA和EAU研究中,FI (p=0.375)和FQ (p=0.080)无显著差异。从中位发表年份来看,2015年以后发表的EAU研究的FI显著增加(p=0.001), 2006年以后发表的AUA研究的FQ显著增加(p=0.004)。在11.8%的AUA和14.2%的EAU结果中,随访损失超过FI。结论:AUA和EAU肾结石指南中引用的随机对照试验具有统计学脆弱性。研究结果强调了将p值作为证据强度的唯一衡量标准的局限性。未来的研究应结合FI、rFI和FQ来增强临床决策。
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
Urology
Urology 医学-泌尿学与肾脏学
CiteScore
3.30
自引率
9.50%
发文量
716
审稿时长
59 days
期刊介绍: Urology is a monthly, peer–reviewed journal primarily for urologists, residents, interns, nephrologists, and other specialists interested in urology The mission of Urology®, the "Gold Journal," is to provide practical, timely, and relevant clinical and basic science information to physicians and researchers practicing the art of urology worldwide. Urology® publishes original articles relating to adult and pediatric clinical urology as well as to clinical and basic science research. Topics in Urology® include pediatrics, surgical oncology, radiology, pathology, erectile dysfunction, infertility, incontinence, transplantation, endourology, andrology, female urology, reconstructive surgery, and medical oncology, as well as relevant basic science issues. Special features include rapid communication of important timely issues, surgeon''s workshops, interesting case reports, surgical techniques, clinical and basic science review articles, guest editorials, letters to the editor, book reviews, and historical articles in urology.
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信