Fragility index: how fragile is the data that support the American College of Gastroenterology guidelines for the management of Crohn's disease?

Fragility index analysis for randomized controlled trials of approved biologicals and small molecule drugs in inflammatory bowel diseases

INTRODUCTION

Biologics and small molecules have been increasingly applied in Crohn's disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC). But the robustness of their trials has not been evaluated.

METHODS

We initially collected all the approved biologics or small molecules for CD or UC up to December 1, 2022. Databases were then queried by keywords in chemical name and CD or UC. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in the two-arm, 1:1 design were included. Fragility index (FI) and fragility quotient (FQ) were subsequently calculated.

RESULTS

We included twenty-eight RCTs, including nine pivotal trials listed in approval labels, nineteen non-pivotal trials not included in the labels. The median sample size was 99 [IQR, 60-262] and the median number of loss-of-follow-up (LFU) was 14 [IQR, 8-43]. Pivotal trials in the labels had the median FI of 8 [IQR, 4-14, n = 6] that was marginally higher than non-pivotal trials (3 [IQR, 2-4], p = 0.08). The median FQ was 0.0330 [IQR, 0.1220-0.0466] and 0.0310 [IQR, 0.0129-0.0540] for pivotal and non-pivotal trials, respectively (p = 1.0). The sample size and FI were significantly correlated (Spearman correlation coefficient [r] = 0.56, 95 %CI 0.21-0.78, p = 0.003). The number of total events was also significantly correlated with FI (r = 0.53, 95 %CI 0.17-0.77, p = 0.006). Study p-values were significantly associated with FI (p = 0.01): trials with p-values < 0.001 had the highest median FI of 10 [IQR, 6-17]. No factor was found strongly correlated with FQ.

CONCLUSION

Results from trials assessing administration-approved biologics or small molecules for treating CD or UC were vulnerable to small changes by measuring FI or FQ. Pivotal studies contributing to regulatory approvals exhibited a relatively higher degree of resilience compared to non-pivotal trials.

What's in a P-Value? A Fragility Analysis of RCTs in the AUA Guidelines for Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia

OBJECTIVE

To use the fragility index (FI) and fragility quotient (FQ) to assess the strength of statistically significant findings for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) cited in the American Urological Association (AUA) guidelines for benign prostatic hyperplasia.

METHODS

Two investigators independently screened the AUA guidelines for management of benign prostatic hyperplasia for RCTs cited as evidence for recommendations. Investigators extracted data related to event rate per group and loss to follow-up which was compared against the FI. Stata 17.0 was used to calculate the FI and FQ which was then summarized and reported according to primary or secondary endpoints.

RESULTS

Among the 373 citations in the AUA guidelines, 24 RCTs met inclusion criteria with 29 distinct outcomes analyzed. The median fragility index was 12 (IQR = 4-38), indicating that twelve alternative events to either study arm would nullify statistical significance. Six studies had a FI of ≤2, indicating that only 1-2 outcomes would need to be changed in order to render nonsignificance of results. In 10/24 RCTs, the number of patients lost to follow-up was greater than the FI.

CONCLUSION

The AUA Clinical Practice Guidelines for management of benign prostatic hyperplasia cite RCTs with more robust findings when compared to previous studies assessing fragility in the field of Urology. While several included studies had high fragility, the median FI in our analysis was approximately 4-5 times higher than comparable studies of urologic RCTs. However, there are areas where improvement is necessary to support the highest quality of evidence-based medicine.

The fragility of randomized placebo-controlled trials for irritable bowel syndrome

BACKGROUND

The fragility index (FI) represents the number of participants whose status in a trial would have to change from a non-event (not experiencing the primary endpoint) to an event (experiencing the primary endpoint) in order to turn a statistically significant result into a non-significant result. We sought to evaluate the fragility indices of irritable bowel syndrome [IBS-mixed (IBS-M), IBS-constipation (IBS-C), & IBS-diarrhea (IBS-D)] trials.

METHODS

Irritable bowel syndrome trials published in high-impact journals were identified from Medline. Trials had to be in adults, randomized, parallel-armed, with at least one statistically significant binary outcome, and an achieved primary endpoint of therapeutic efficacy. FI and correlation coefficients were calculated, and regression modeling used to identify predictors of a high FI.

KEY RESULTS

Twelve trials were analyzed with a median FI of 6 (range: 0-38). Median sample size in all trials was 366 (range: 44-856). Trial publication year (p = 0.71), journal impact factor (p = 0.52), duration of study (p = 0.12), and number need to treat [NNT] (p = 0.29) were not predictive of a high FI. While a lower p-value correlated with a higher FI (p = 0.039), no correlation was noted between FI and impact factor (R = -0.20, p = 0.52), trial publication year (R = 0.12, p = 0.71), duration of trial (R = -0.46, p = 0.13), NNT (R = -0.34, p = 0.29), and sample size (R = 0.23, p = 0.5). The highest FI was in a Ramosetron trial (FI = 30) for IBS-D.

CONCLUSION & INFERENCES

A median of six participants is needed to nullify results in the included IBS trials suggesting how easily statistical significance based on a threshold p-value may be overturned.

Fragility index of urological literature regarding medical expulsive treatment

INTRODUCTION

The role of medical expulsive treatment (MET) is controversial. Fragility index is an additional metric to assess randomized controlled trials (RCTs) outcome validity and indicates how many patients would be required to convert a trial from being statistically significant, to not significant. The larger is the FI, the better the trial's data. The aim of this study is to assess FI of RCTs regarding MET for ureteral stones.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed. RCTs, reporting stone expulsion as a dichotomous outcome, showing statistical significance were eligible. FI (the number of patients needed to change from a non-event to event group, to lose statistical significance) and Fragility quotient (FI divided by total sample size), were calculated while Pearson's correlation and Mann-Whitney U test were used as appropriate.

RESULTS

Thirty-six RCTs were eligible, with median FI = 3.5 and fragility quotient = 0.042, median sample size = 81, median journal impact factor = 1.73 and median reported p value = 0.008. In 33.3% of the studies, number of patients lost during follow-up was larger than FI, while in 13.89% of the studies, FI was 0, indicating use of inappropriate statistical method. Pearson's correlation showed significant positive association between FI and sample size (r = 0.981), number of events (r = 0.982) and impact factor (r = 0.731), while no association was found with p value or publication year.

CONCLUSIONS

In this analysis, a calculated FI of 3.5 indicates that findings from RCTs on MET for ureteral stones are fragile and should be interpreted in combination with clinical thinking and expertise.

Frequent fragility of randomized controlled trials for HCC treatment

Background

The fragility index (FI) of trial results can provide a measure of confidence in the positive effects reported in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The aim of this study was to calculate the FI of RCTs supporting HCC treatments.

Methods

A methodological systematic review of RCTs in HCC treatments was conducted. Two-arm studies with randomized and positive results for a time-to-event outcome were eligible for the FI calculation.

Results

A total of 6 trails were included in this analysis. The median FI was 0.5 (IQR 0–10). FI was ≤7 in 4 (66.7%) of 6 trials; in those trials the fragility quotient was ≤1%.

Conclusion

Many phase 3 RCTs supporting HCC treatments have a low FI, which challenges the confidence in concluding the superiority of these drugs over control treatments.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12885-021-08133-8.

How fragile are Mediterranean diet interventions? A research-on-research study of randomised controlled trials

INTRODUCTION

The Mediterranean diet (MD) is a traditional regional dietary pattern and a healthy diet recommended for the primary and secondary prevention of various diseases and health conditions. Results from the higher level of primary evidence, namely randomised controlled trials (RCTs), are often used to produce dietary recommendations; however, the robustness of RCTs with MD interventions is unknown.

METHODS

A systematic search was conducted and all MD RCTs with dichotomous primary outcomes were extracted from PubMed. The fragility (FI) and the reverse fragility index (RFI) were calculated for the trials with significant and non-significant comparisons, respectively.

RESULTS

Out of 27 RCTs of parallel design, the majority failed to present a significant primary outcome, exhibiting an FI equal to 0. The median FI of the significant comparisons was 5, ranging between 1 and 39. More than half of the comparisons had an FI <5, indicating that the addition of 1-4 events to the treatment arm eliminated the statistical significance. For the comparisons with an FI=0, the RFI ranged between 1 and 29 (Median RFI: 7). When the included RCTs were stratified according to masking, the use of a composite primary endpoint, sample size, outcome category, or dietary adherence assessment method, no differences were exhibited in the FI and RFI between groups, except for the RFI among different compliance assessment methods.

CONCLUSIONS

In essence, the present study shows that even in the top tiers of evidence hierarchy, research on the MD may lack robustness, setting concerns for the formulation of nutrition recommendations.

How Robust are the Evidences that Formulate Surviving Sepsis Guidelines? An Analysis of Fragility and Reverse Fragility of Randomized Controlled Trials that were Referred in these Guidelines

Objectives

“Surviving Sepsis Campaign: International Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock: 2016” provides guidelines in regard to prompt management and resuscitation of sepsis or septic shock. The study is aimed to assess the robustness of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that formulate these guidelines in terms of fragility index and reverse fragility index.

Method

RCTs that contributed to these guidelines having parallel two-group design, 1:1 allocation ratio, and at least one dichotomous outcome were included in the study. The median fragility index was calculated for RCTs with significant statistical outcomes, whereas the median reverse fragility index was calculated for RCTs with nonsignificant statistical results.

Results

Hundred RCTs that met the inclusion criteria were analyzed. The median fragility index was 5.5 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1–30] and median reverse fragility index was 13 (95% CI 12.07–16.8) at a p value of 0.05. The median reverse fragility index was 16 (95% CI 10–26) at a p value of 0.01. Most of the RCTs included in this analysis were of good quality, having a median Jadad score of 6.

Conclusion

This analysis found that the surviving sepsis guidelines were based on highly robust RCTs with statistically insignificant results and on some moderately robust RCTs with statistically significant results. RCTs with statistically insignificant results were more robust than RCTs with statistically significant results in regard to these guidelines.

Highlights

The study assessed the robustness of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that were used to formulate surviving sepsis guidelines. Most RCTs showed statistically nonsignificant results. RCTs with statistically significant results were moderately fragile whereas RCTs with nonsignificant results were more robust.

How to cite this article

Choupoo NS, Das SK, Saikia P, Dey S, Ray S. How Robust are the Evidences that Formulate Surviving Sepsis Guidelines? An Analysis of Fragility and Reverse Fragility of Randomized Controlled Trials that were Referred in these Guidelines. Indian J Crit Care Med 2021;25(7):773–779.

Dismantling the Fragility Index: A demonstration of statistical reasoning

The Fragility Index has been introduced as a complement to the P-value to summarize the statistical strength of evidence for a trial's result. The Fragility Index (FI) is defined in trials with two equal treatment group sizes, with a dichotomous or time-to-event outcome, and is calculated as the minimum number of conversions from nonevent to event in the treatment group needed to shift the P-value from Fisher's exact test over the .05 threshold. As the index lacks a well-defined probability motivation, its interpretation is challenging for consumers. We clarify what the FI may be capturing by separately considering two scenarios: (a) what the FI is capturing mathematically when the probability model is correct and (b) how well the FI captures violations of probability model assumptions. By calculating the posterior probability of a treatment effect, we show that when the probability model is correct, the FI inappropriately penalizes small trials for using fewer events than larger trials to achieve the same significance level. The analysis shows that for experiments conducted without bias, the FI promotes an incorrect intuition of probability, which has not been noted elsewhere and must be dispelled. We illustrate shortcomings of the FI's ability to quantify departures from model assumptions and contextualize the FI concept within current debate around the null hypothesis significance testing paradigm. Altogether, the FI creates more confusion than it resolves and does not promote statistical thinking. We recommend against its use. Instead, sensitivity analyses are recommended to quantify and communicate robustness of trial results.