在随机对照试验中报告臂丛神经阻滞术后半膈麻痹的统计脆弱性:系统综述

Quehua Luo, Yang Liu, Yi Zhu, Zhipeng Wang, Junyi Zheng, Weifeng Yao
{"title":"在随机对照试验中报告臂丛神经阻滞术后半膈麻痹的统计脆弱性:系统综述","authors":"Quehua Luo,&nbsp;Yang Liu,&nbsp;Yi Zhu,&nbsp;Zhipeng Wang,&nbsp;Junyi Zheng,&nbsp;Weifeng Yao","doi":"10.1007/s44254-023-00006-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>To characterize the fragility index (FI) of statistically significant results reported in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the incidence of hemidiaphragmatic paralysis (HDP) after brachial plexus blocks. A systematic review of RCTs retrieved from the PubMed-Medline, Embase, and Web of Science electronic databases was conducted. All alternative RCTs published between January 2012 and October 2022 were identified. Only RCTs with two parallel arms designs, and reporting HDP as the primary outcome, statistical significance, and superiority results were selected. The FI was calculated according to Fisher’s exact test using previously described methods. In addition, the risk of bias was evaluated using the Cochrane Risk-of-Bias tool for randomized trials. The 23 RCTs that fulfilled the inclusion criteria had a median FI of 4 (interquartile range [IQR]2–8) and a median Fragility Quotient of 0.077 (IQR 0.038- 0.129). However, in 13 (56.5%) trials, the calculated FI value was ≤ 4. In 3/23 (13.0%) trials, the number of patients who dropped-out exceeded the FI value. Most trials (91.3%) had an overall low risk of bias. This systematic review revealed that the statistical results of RCTs investing HDP after brachial plexus blocks have tended to be fragile in the past decade. The FI should be an important aid in the interpretation of clinical results in combination with the P-value, particularly when statistically significant results are dependent on a small number of events. Future RCTs with larger sample sizes are needed to obtain more robust results in this field.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":100082,"journal":{"name":"Anesthesiology and Perioperative Science","volume":"1 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s44254-023-00006-6.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Statistical fragility of reporting hemidiaphragmatic paralysis after brachial plexus blocks in randomized controlled trials: a systematic review\",\"authors\":\"Quehua Luo,&nbsp;Yang Liu,&nbsp;Yi Zhu,&nbsp;Zhipeng Wang,&nbsp;Junyi Zheng,&nbsp;Weifeng Yao\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s44254-023-00006-6\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>To characterize the fragility index (FI) of statistically significant results reported in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the incidence of hemidiaphragmatic paralysis (HDP) after brachial plexus blocks. A systematic review of RCTs retrieved from the PubMed-Medline, Embase, and Web of Science electronic databases was conducted. All alternative RCTs published between January 2012 and October 2022 were identified. Only RCTs with two parallel arms designs, and reporting HDP as the primary outcome, statistical significance, and superiority results were selected. The FI was calculated according to Fisher’s exact test using previously described methods. In addition, the risk of bias was evaluated using the Cochrane Risk-of-Bias tool for randomized trials. The 23 RCTs that fulfilled the inclusion criteria had a median FI of 4 (interquartile range [IQR]2–8) and a median Fragility Quotient of 0.077 (IQR 0.038- 0.129). However, in 13 (56.5%) trials, the calculated FI value was ≤ 4. In 3/23 (13.0%) trials, the number of patients who dropped-out exceeded the FI value. Most trials (91.3%) had an overall low risk of bias. This systematic review revealed that the statistical results of RCTs investing HDP after brachial plexus blocks have tended to be fragile in the past decade. The FI should be an important aid in the interpretation of clinical results in combination with the P-value, particularly when statistically significant results are dependent on a small number of events. Future RCTs with larger sample sizes are needed to obtain more robust results in this field.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":100082,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Anesthesiology and Perioperative Science\",\"volume\":\"1 2\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-04-24\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s44254-023-00006-6.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Anesthesiology and Perioperative Science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s44254-023-00006-6\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Anesthesiology and Perioperative Science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s44254-023-00006-6","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

目的:描述研究臂丛神经阻滞术后半膈麻痹(HDP)发生率的随机对照试验(RCT)所报告的具有统计学意义的结果的脆性指数(FI)。我们对从 PubMed-Medline、Embase 和 Web of Science 电子数据库中检索到的 RCT 进行了系统性回顾。确定了 2012 年 1 月至 2022 年 10 月间发表的所有备选 RCT。只选择了采用双臂平行设计、以 HDP 为主要结果、具有统计学意义和优越性结果的 RCT。FI采用费雪精确检验法计算,使用的是之前描述过的方法。此外,还使用 Cochrane 随机试验偏倚风险工具对偏倚风险进行了评估。符合纳入标准的 23 项 RCT 的脆性指数中位数为 4(四分位数间距 [IQR]2-8),脆性商数中位数为 0.077(IQR 0.038-0.129)。然而,在 13 项(56.5%)试验中,计算出的 FI 值小于 4。在3/23(13.0%)项试验中,退出的患者人数超过了FI值。大多数试验(91.3%)的总体偏倚风险较低。这项系统性综述显示,在过去的十年中,臂丛神经阻滞后投资 HDP 的 RCT 统计结果趋于脆弱。FI 值应与 P 值相结合,成为解释临床结果的重要辅助工具,尤其是当具有统计学意义的结果取决于少量事件时。未来需要进行样本量更大的 RCT 研究,以便在这一领域获得更可靠的结果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Statistical fragility of reporting hemidiaphragmatic paralysis after brachial plexus blocks in randomized controlled trials: a systematic review

To characterize the fragility index (FI) of statistically significant results reported in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the incidence of hemidiaphragmatic paralysis (HDP) after brachial plexus blocks. A systematic review of RCTs retrieved from the PubMed-Medline, Embase, and Web of Science electronic databases was conducted. All alternative RCTs published between January 2012 and October 2022 were identified. Only RCTs with two parallel arms designs, and reporting HDP as the primary outcome, statistical significance, and superiority results were selected. The FI was calculated according to Fisher’s exact test using previously described methods. In addition, the risk of bias was evaluated using the Cochrane Risk-of-Bias tool for randomized trials. The 23 RCTs that fulfilled the inclusion criteria had a median FI of 4 (interquartile range [IQR]2–8) and a median Fragility Quotient of 0.077 (IQR 0.038- 0.129). However, in 13 (56.5%) trials, the calculated FI value was ≤ 4. In 3/23 (13.0%) trials, the number of patients who dropped-out exceeded the FI value. Most trials (91.3%) had an overall low risk of bias. This systematic review revealed that the statistical results of RCTs investing HDP after brachial plexus blocks have tended to be fragile in the past decade. The FI should be an important aid in the interpretation of clinical results in combination with the P-value, particularly when statistically significant results are dependent on a small number of events. Future RCTs with larger sample sizes are needed to obtain more robust results in this field.

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