Application of the Reverse Fragility Index to Statistically Nonsignificant Randomized Clinical Trial Results.
Journal
JAMA network open
ISSN: 2574-3805
Titre abrégé: JAMA Netw Open
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101729235
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
03 08 2020
03 08 2020
Historique:
entrez:
7
8
2020
pubmed:
7
8
2020
medline:
1
1
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Interpreting randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and their clinical relevance is challenging when P values are either marginally above or below the P = .05 threshold. To use the concept of reverse fragility index (RFI) to provide a measure of confidence in the neutrality of RCT results when assessed from the clinical perspective. In this cross-sectional study, a MEDLINE search was conducted for RCTs published from January 1, 2013, to December 31, 2018, in JAMA, the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), and The Lancet. Eligible studies were phase 3 and 4 trials with 1:1 randomization and statistically nonsignificant binary primary end points. Data analysis was performed from August 1, 2019, to August 31, 2019. Single vs multicenter enrollment, total number of events, private vs government funding, placebo vs active control, and time to event vs frequency data. The primary outcome was the median RFI with interquartile range (IQR) at the P = .05 threshold. Secondary outcomes were the number of RCTs in which the number of participants lost to follow-up was greater than the RFI; the median RFI with IQR at different P value thresholds; the median reverse fragility quotient with IQR; and the correlation between sample sizes, number of events, and P values of the RCT and RFI. Of the 167 RCTs included, 76 (46%) were published in the NEJM, 50 (30%) in JAMA, and 41 (24%) in The Lancet. The median (IQR) sample size was 970 (470-3427) participants, and the median (IQR) number of events was 251 (105-570). The median (IQR) RFI at the P = .05 threshold was 8 (5-13). Fifty-seven RCTs (34%) had an RFI of 5 or lower, and in 68 RCTs (41%) the number of participants lost to follow-up was greater than the RFI. Trials with P values ranging from P = .06 to P = .10 had a median (IQR) RFI of 3 (2-4). When compared, median (IQR) RFIs were not statistically significant for single-center vs multicenter enrollment (5 [4-13] vs 8 [5-13]; P = .41), private vs government-funded studies (9 [5-13] vs 8 [5-13]; P = .34), and time-to-event primary end points vs frequency data (9 [5-14] vs 7 [4-13]; P = .43). The median (IQR) RFI at the P = .01 threshold was 12 (7-19) and at the P = .005 threshold was 14 (9-21). This cross-sectional study found that a relatively small number of events (median of 8) had to change to move the primary end point of an RCT from nonsignificant to statistically significant. These findings emphasize the nuance required when interpreting trial results that did not meet prespecified significance thresholds.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32756927
pii: 2769028
doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.12469
pmc: PMC7407075
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e2012469Références
Ann Emerg Med. 2019 Jun;73(6):565-576
pubmed: 30551894
Spine J. 2015 Oct 1;15(10):2188-97
pubmed: 26072464
N Engl J Med. 2018 May 24;378(21):1965-1975
pubmed: 29791822
N Engl J Med. 2011 Apr 28;364(17):1607-16
pubmed: 21463150
Chest. 2018 Sep;154(3):512-520
pubmed: 29410171
Psychon Bull Rev. 2018 Feb;25(1):178-206
pubmed: 28176294
N Engl J Med. 2016 Apr 21;374(16):1511-20
pubmed: 27040723
BMJ. 2004 Feb 28;328(7438):476-7
pubmed: 14988165
Clin Trials. 2015 Oct;12(5):537-9
pubmed: 26253052
Crit Care Med. 2016 Nov;44(11):e1142-e1143
pubmed: 27755081
N Engl J Med. 2019 Jul 18;381(3):285-286
pubmed: 31314974
BMJ Open. 2019 Mar 7;9(3):e024256
pubmed: 30850406
JAMA. 2019 Aug 27;322(8):732-735
pubmed: 31454026
N Engl J Med. 1978 Sep 28;299(13):690-4
pubmed: 355881
Eur Heart J. 2017 Feb 1;38(5):346-348
pubmed: 28417139
JAMA. 2018 Nov 6;320(17):1813-1815
pubmed: 30398593
J Clin Epidemiol. 2014 Jun;67(6):622-8
pubmed: 24508144
Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2017 Dec;134:91-105
pubmed: 29037877
J Clin Med. 2017 Aug 14;6(8):
pubmed: 28805717
Eur J Emerg Med. 2002 Jun;9(2):203-7
pubmed: 12131650
Lancet Oncol. 2019 Aug;20(8):1065-1069
pubmed: 31296490
JAMA. 2018 Apr 10;319(14):1429-1430
pubmed: 29566133
JAMA Surg. 2019 Jan 1;154(1):74-79
pubmed: 30422256
J Exp Psychol Gen. 2013 May;142(2):573-603
pubmed: 22774788
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2015 Dec 8;66(22):2536-49
pubmed: 26653629
J Gen Intern Med. 2019 Jul;34(7):1236-1243
pubmed: 31037544
Br J Anaesth. 2018 May;120(5):935-941
pubmed: 29661411
BMJ. 2012 May 18;344:e2809
pubmed: 22611167
Eur Heart J. 2017 Feb 1;38(5):338-345
pubmed: 27742808
Anesth Analg. 2018 Mar;126(3):1068-1072
pubmed: 29337724