在前交叉韧带重建中,将股四头肌腱自体移植物与腘绳肌腱或骨-髌腱-骨自体移植物进行比较的随机对照试验在统计学上有多脆弱?

IF 4.3 3区 材料科学 Q1 ENGINEERING, ELECTRICAL & ELECTRONIC
Joshua Dworsky-Fried, Luca Bernardini, Prushoth Vivekanantha, Lauren Gyemi, Amit Meena, Sachin Tapasvi, Christian Fink, Darren de Sa
{"title":"在前交叉韧带重建中,将股四头肌腱自体移植物与腘绳肌腱或骨-髌腱-骨自体移植物进行比较的随机对照试验在统计学上有多脆弱?","authors":"Joshua Dworsky-Fried, Luca Bernardini, Prushoth Vivekanantha, Lauren Gyemi, Amit Meena, Sachin Tapasvi, Christian Fink, Darren de Sa","doi":"10.1002/ksa.12535","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To determine the statistical fragility of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) which compare the use of quadriceps tendon (QT) autografts to either hamstring tendon (HT) or bone-patellar tendon-bone (BPTB) autografts in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A search was conducted across PubMed, MEDLINE and EMBASE databases for RCTs comparing QT autografts to HT or BPTB autografts in ACLR from inception to 21 April 2024. Studies that reported ≥1 statistically significant continuous outcome, statistically significant dichotomous outcome and/or nonsignificant dichotomous outcome were included for analysis. The fragility index (FI), continuous fragility index (CFI) and reverse fragility index (RFI) were calculated for significant dichotomous outcomes, significant continuous outcomes and nonsignificant dichotomous outcomes, respectively.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 11 RCTs comprising 716 patients were included. The mean sample size was 65.8 patients. The median FI among nine outcomes from four studies was 1.0 (interquartile range [IQR], 0.5; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.6-1.4; range 0.5-1.5). The number of patients lost to follow-up at the final follow-up period was more than the study-specific FI in three (75%) studies. The median CFI among 30 outcomes from six studies was 4.9 (IQR, 10.1, 95% CI, 3.9-8.2; range 0-18.2). The number of patients lost to follow-up at the final follow-up period was more than the study-specific CFI in four (66.7%) studies. The median RFI among 10 outcomes from five studies was 5.0 (IQR, 3.5; 95% CI, 3.4-6.6; range 1.0-9.0). The number of patients lost to follow-up at the final follow-up period was more than the study-specific RFI in four (80%) studies.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This systematic review revealed that regardless of the metric used, RCTs comparing QT autografts to HT or BPTB autograft options in ACLR are statistically fragile. While the indices of statistical fragility evaluated in this study are important metrics of robustness to consider, their application in research and clinical practice needs to be further elucidated.</p><p><strong>Level of evidence: </strong>Level I.</p>","PeriodicalId":3,"journal":{"name":"ACS Applied Electronic Materials","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"How statistically fragile are randomized controlled trials comparing quadriceps tendon autografts with hamstring or bone-patellar tendon-bone autografts in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction?\",\"authors\":\"Joshua Dworsky-Fried, Luca Bernardini, Prushoth Vivekanantha, Lauren Gyemi, Amit Meena, Sachin Tapasvi, Christian Fink, Darren de Sa\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/ksa.12535\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To determine the statistical fragility of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) which compare the use of quadriceps tendon (QT) autografts to either hamstring tendon (HT) or bone-patellar tendon-bone (BPTB) autografts in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A search was conducted across PubMed, MEDLINE and EMBASE databases for RCTs comparing QT autografts to HT or BPTB autografts in ACLR from inception to 21 April 2024. Studies that reported ≥1 statistically significant continuous outcome, statistically significant dichotomous outcome and/or nonsignificant dichotomous outcome were included for analysis. The fragility index (FI), continuous fragility index (CFI) and reverse fragility index (RFI) were calculated for significant dichotomous outcomes, significant continuous outcomes and nonsignificant dichotomous outcomes, respectively.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 11 RCTs comprising 716 patients were included. The mean sample size was 65.8 patients. The median FI among nine outcomes from four studies was 1.0 (interquartile range [IQR], 0.5; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.6-1.4; range 0.5-1.5). The number of patients lost to follow-up at the final follow-up period was more than the study-specific FI in three (75%) studies. The median CFI among 30 outcomes from six studies was 4.9 (IQR, 10.1, 95% CI, 3.9-8.2; range 0-18.2). The number of patients lost to follow-up at the final follow-up period was more than the study-specific CFI in four (66.7%) studies. The median RFI among 10 outcomes from five studies was 5.0 (IQR, 3.5; 95% CI, 3.4-6.6; range 1.0-9.0). The number of patients lost to follow-up at the final follow-up period was more than the study-specific RFI in four (80%) studies.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This systematic review revealed that regardless of the metric used, RCTs comparing QT autografts to HT or BPTB autograft options in ACLR are statistically fragile. While the indices of statistical fragility evaluated in this study are important metrics of robustness to consider, their application in research and clinical practice needs to be further elucidated.</p><p><strong>Level of evidence: </strong>Level I.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":3,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"ACS Applied Electronic Materials\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"ACS Applied Electronic Materials\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1002/ksa.12535\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"材料科学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ENGINEERING, ELECTRICAL & ELECTRONIC\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACS Applied Electronic Materials","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/ksa.12535","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"材料科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, ELECTRICAL & ELECTRONIC","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:比较在前交叉韧带重建(ACLR)中使用股四头肌腱(QT)自体移植物与腘绳肌腱(HT)或骨-髌腱-骨(BPTB)自体移植物的随机对照试验(RCT),确定其统计易损性:方法:在 PubMed、MEDLINE 和 EMBASE 数据库中检索了从开始到 2024 年 4 月 21 日期间在 ACLR 中比较 QT 自体移植物与 HT 或 BPTB 自体移植物的 RCT。纳入分析的研究包括报告了≥1个有统计学意义的连续结果、有统计学意义的二分结果和/或无意义的二分结果。对显著的二分结果、显著的连续结果和不显著的二分结果分别计算脆性指数(FI)、连续脆性指数(CFI)和反向脆性指数(RFI):结果:共纳入了 11 项研究,716 名患者。平均样本量为 65.8 名患者。四项研究中九项结果的中位 FI 为 1.0(四分位数间距 [IQR],0.5;95% 置信区间 [CI],0.6-1.4;范围 0.5-1.5)。在三项(75%)研究中,最终随访期失去随访的患者人数超过了特定研究的 FI。六项研究的 30 项结果的 CFI 中位数为 4.9(IQR,10.1,95% CI,3.9-8.2;范围 0-18.2)。有四项研究(66.7%)的最终随访期失去随访的患者人数超过了特定研究的 CFI。五项研究的 10 项结果的 RFI 中位数为 5.0(IQR,3.5;95% CI,3.4-6.6;范围 1.0-9.0)。在四项(80%)研究中,最终随访期失去随访的患者人数超过了特定研究的 RFI:本系统综述显示,无论使用何种指标,在前交叉韧带置换术中将 QT 自体移植物与 HT 或 BPTB 自体移植物进行比较的 RCT 在统计学上都很脆弱。虽然本研究中评估的统计脆性指数是衡量稳健性的重要指标,但它们在研究和临床实践中的应用还需要进一步阐明:证据等级:一级。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
How statistically fragile are randomized controlled trials comparing quadriceps tendon autografts with hamstring or bone-patellar tendon-bone autografts in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction?

Purpose: To determine the statistical fragility of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) which compare the use of quadriceps tendon (QT) autografts to either hamstring tendon (HT) or bone-patellar tendon-bone (BPTB) autografts in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR).

Methods: A search was conducted across PubMed, MEDLINE and EMBASE databases for RCTs comparing QT autografts to HT or BPTB autografts in ACLR from inception to 21 April 2024. Studies that reported ≥1 statistically significant continuous outcome, statistically significant dichotomous outcome and/or nonsignificant dichotomous outcome were included for analysis. The fragility index (FI), continuous fragility index (CFI) and reverse fragility index (RFI) were calculated for significant dichotomous outcomes, significant continuous outcomes and nonsignificant dichotomous outcomes, respectively.

Results: A total of 11 RCTs comprising 716 patients were included. The mean sample size was 65.8 patients. The median FI among nine outcomes from four studies was 1.0 (interquartile range [IQR], 0.5; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.6-1.4; range 0.5-1.5). The number of patients lost to follow-up at the final follow-up period was more than the study-specific FI in three (75%) studies. The median CFI among 30 outcomes from six studies was 4.9 (IQR, 10.1, 95% CI, 3.9-8.2; range 0-18.2). The number of patients lost to follow-up at the final follow-up period was more than the study-specific CFI in four (66.7%) studies. The median RFI among 10 outcomes from five studies was 5.0 (IQR, 3.5; 95% CI, 3.4-6.6; range 1.0-9.0). The number of patients lost to follow-up at the final follow-up period was more than the study-specific RFI in four (80%) studies.

Conclusion: This systematic review revealed that regardless of the metric used, RCTs comparing QT autografts to HT or BPTB autograft options in ACLR are statistically fragile. While the indices of statistical fragility evaluated in this study are important metrics of robustness to consider, their application in research and clinical practice needs to be further elucidated.

Level of evidence: Level I.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.20
自引率
4.30%
发文量
567
×
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