关节镜下肩袖修复伴或不伴肩峰成形术功能结果的统计脆弱性:一项系统回顾和荟萃分析。

David S Clark,Benjamin C Tingey,Jeffrey L Shi,Jeremy S Somerson
{"title":"关节镜下肩袖修复伴或不伴肩峰成形术功能结果的统计脆弱性:一项系统回顾和荟萃分析。","authors":"David S Clark,Benjamin C Tingey,Jeffrey L Shi,Jeremy S Somerson","doi":"10.1177/03635465241302797","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"BACKGROUND\r\nViews surrounding acromioplasty at the time of arthroscopic rotator cuff repair (RCR) have shifted dramatically over time. In recent years, various studies have argued against acromioplasty, citing equivocal functional outcomes after arthroscopic RCR with or without acromioplasty.\r\n\r\nPURPOSE\r\nTo assess the statistical fragility of functional outcomes after arthroscopic RCR with and without acromioplasty using the reverse continuous fragility index (RCFI).\r\n\r\nSTUDY DESIGN\r\nSystematic review and meta-analysis; Level of evidence, 3.\r\n\r\nMETHODS\r\nA systematic review and meta-analysis was performed including all randomized controlled trials through February 5, 2024 investigating arthroscopic RCR with and without acromioplasty. The RCFI, defined as the number of qualifying data points required to be moved from the lower mean group to the higher mean group to alter the significance, was calculated for the Welch t test, Student t test, and Wilcoxon rank-sum test under various data assumptions. The reverse continuous fragility quotient (RCFQ) was determined by dividing the RCFI by the sample size.\r\n\r\nRESULTS\r\nA total of 6 clinical trials consisting of 609 patients with functional outcome scores were analyzed. Using the Welch t test, the median RCFI across all study outcomes was 20 (interquartile range [IQR], 17-24). For the Student t test, the median RCFI across all study outcomes was 14 (IQR, 13-19), with a median RCFQ of 0.18 (IQR, 0.15-0.20). For the Wilcoxon rank-sum test, the median RCFI was 14 (IQR, 13-17), with a median RCFQ of 0.17 (IQR, 0.13-0.19). While using the Welch t test, 64% of study outcomes had an RCFI greater than the loss to follow-up (LTFU). When using the other tests, 32% of study outcomes had an RCFI greater than the LTFU.\r\n\r\nCONCLUSION\r\nThe fragility of these studies was largely dependent on the statistical test used to analyze the results. The Wilcoxon rank-sum test and Student t test appeared to be most appropriate to find differences in treatment arms. When using these tests, we found the results to be fragile. This, in combination with a small number of studies and the LTFU close to or exceeding 20%, indicates an overall lack of strong evidence to support previously accepted conclusions.","PeriodicalId":517411,"journal":{"name":"The American Journal of Sports Medicine","volume":"32 1","pages":"3635465241302797"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Statistical Fragility of Functional Outcomes for Arthroscopic Rotator Cuff Repair With and Without Acromioplasty: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.\",\"authors\":\"David S Clark,Benjamin C Tingey,Jeffrey L Shi,Jeremy S Somerson\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/03635465241302797\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"BACKGROUND\\r\\nViews surrounding acromioplasty at the time of arthroscopic rotator cuff repair (RCR) have shifted dramatically over time. In recent years, various studies have argued against acromioplasty, citing equivocal functional outcomes after arthroscopic RCR with or without acromioplasty.\\r\\n\\r\\nPURPOSE\\r\\nTo assess the statistical fragility of functional outcomes after arthroscopic RCR with and without acromioplasty using the reverse continuous fragility index (RCFI).\\r\\n\\r\\nSTUDY DESIGN\\r\\nSystematic review and meta-analysis; Level of evidence, 3.\\r\\n\\r\\nMETHODS\\r\\nA systematic review and meta-analysis was performed including all randomized controlled trials through February 5, 2024 investigating arthroscopic RCR with and without acromioplasty. The RCFI, defined as the number of qualifying data points required to be moved from the lower mean group to the higher mean group to alter the significance, was calculated for the Welch t test, Student t test, and Wilcoxon rank-sum test under various data assumptions. The reverse continuous fragility quotient (RCFQ) was determined by dividing the RCFI by the sample size.\\r\\n\\r\\nRESULTS\\r\\nA total of 6 clinical trials consisting of 609 patients with functional outcome scores were analyzed. Using the Welch t test, the median RCFI across all study outcomes was 20 (interquartile range [IQR], 17-24). For the Student t test, the median RCFI across all study outcomes was 14 (IQR, 13-19), with a median RCFQ of 0.18 (IQR, 0.15-0.20). For the Wilcoxon rank-sum test, the median RCFI was 14 (IQR, 13-17), with a median RCFQ of 0.17 (IQR, 0.13-0.19). While using the Welch t test, 64% of study outcomes had an RCFI greater than the loss to follow-up (LTFU). When using the other tests, 32% of study outcomes had an RCFI greater than the LTFU.\\r\\n\\r\\nCONCLUSION\\r\\nThe fragility of these studies was largely dependent on the statistical test used to analyze the results. The Wilcoxon rank-sum test and Student t test appeared to be most appropriate to find differences in treatment arms. When using these tests, we found the results to be fragile. This, in combination with a small number of studies and the LTFU close to or exceeding 20%, indicates an overall lack of strong evidence to support previously accepted conclusions.\",\"PeriodicalId\":517411,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The American Journal of Sports Medicine\",\"volume\":\"32 1\",\"pages\":\"3635465241302797\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The American Journal of Sports Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/03635465241302797\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The American Journal of Sports Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/03635465241302797","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:关节镜下肩袖修复术(RCR)时肩峰成形术的观点随着时间的推移发生了巨大的变化。近年来,各种研究都反对肩峰成形术,理由是关节镜下RCR合并或不合并肩峰成形术后的功能结果模棱两可。目的采用反向连续脆性指数(RCFI)评估关节镜下RCR伴肩峰成形术和不伴肩峰成形术后功能结果的统计学脆弱性。研究设计:系统评价和荟萃分析;证据水平,3。方法对截至2024年2月5日的所有随机对照试验进行系统回顾和荟萃分析,研究关节镜下RCR伴或不伴肩峰成形术。RCFI定义为需要从较低均值组移动到较高均值组以改变显著性的合格数据点的数量,在各种数据假设下对Welch t检验、Student t检验和Wilcoxon秩和检验进行计算。反向连续脆弱性商(RCFQ)由RCFI除以样本量确定。结果对6项临床试验609例患者的功能结局评分进行分析。使用Welch t检验,所有研究结果的RCFI中位数为20(四分位数范围[IQR], 17-24)。对于Student t检验,所有研究结果的中位RCFI为14 (IQR, 13-19),中位RCFQ为0.18 (IQR, 0.15-0.20)。对于Wilcoxon秩和检验,中位RCFI为14 (IQR, 13-17),中位RCFQ为0.17 (IQR, 0.13-0.19)。当使用Welch t检验时,64%的研究结果RCFI大于随访损失(LTFU)。当使用其他测试时,32%的研究结果的RCFI大于LTFU。结论这些研究的脆弱性很大程度上取决于用于分析结果的统计检验。Wilcoxon秩和检验和Student t检验似乎最适合发现治疗组的差异。在使用这些测试时,我们发现结果是脆弱的。这与少数研究和接近或超过20%的LTFU相结合,表明总体上缺乏强有力的证据来支持以前接受的结论。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The Statistical Fragility of Functional Outcomes for Arthroscopic Rotator Cuff Repair With and Without Acromioplasty: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND Views surrounding acromioplasty at the time of arthroscopic rotator cuff repair (RCR) have shifted dramatically over time. In recent years, various studies have argued against acromioplasty, citing equivocal functional outcomes after arthroscopic RCR with or without acromioplasty. PURPOSE To assess the statistical fragility of functional outcomes after arthroscopic RCR with and without acromioplasty using the reverse continuous fragility index (RCFI). STUDY DESIGN Systematic review and meta-analysis; Level of evidence, 3. METHODS A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed including all randomized controlled trials through February 5, 2024 investigating arthroscopic RCR with and without acromioplasty. The RCFI, defined as the number of qualifying data points required to be moved from the lower mean group to the higher mean group to alter the significance, was calculated for the Welch t test, Student t test, and Wilcoxon rank-sum test under various data assumptions. The reverse continuous fragility quotient (RCFQ) was determined by dividing the RCFI by the sample size. RESULTS A total of 6 clinical trials consisting of 609 patients with functional outcome scores were analyzed. Using the Welch t test, the median RCFI across all study outcomes was 20 (interquartile range [IQR], 17-24). For the Student t test, the median RCFI across all study outcomes was 14 (IQR, 13-19), with a median RCFQ of 0.18 (IQR, 0.15-0.20). For the Wilcoxon rank-sum test, the median RCFI was 14 (IQR, 13-17), with a median RCFQ of 0.17 (IQR, 0.13-0.19). While using the Welch t test, 64% of study outcomes had an RCFI greater than the loss to follow-up (LTFU). When using the other tests, 32% of study outcomes had an RCFI greater than the LTFU. CONCLUSION The fragility of these studies was largely dependent on the statistical test used to analyze the results. The Wilcoxon rank-sum test and Student t test appeared to be most appropriate to find differences in treatment arms. When using these tests, we found the results to be fragile. This, in combination with a small number of studies and the LTFU close to or exceeding 20%, indicates an overall lack of strong evidence to support previously accepted conclusions.
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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