Erschienen in:
12.05.2021 | Original Article
Fragility index of urological literature regarding medical expulsive treatment
verfasst von:
Lazaros Tzelves, Nikolaos Chatzikrachtis, Lazaros Lazarou, Panagiotis Mourmouris, Alexandros Pinitas, Kimon Tsirkas, Orestis Petropoulos, Marinos Berdempes, Georgios Feretzakis, Ioannis Glykas, Charalampos Fragkoulis, Ioannis Varkarakis, Andreas Skolarikos
Erschienen in:
World Journal of Urology
|
Ausgabe 10/2021
Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten
Abstract
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.