The Fragility of Statistically Significant Results in Randomized Clinical Trials for COVID-19
JAMA Network Open, ISSN: 2574-3805, Vol: 5, Issue: 3, Page: e222973
2022
- 17Citations
- 52Captures
- 1Mentions
Metric Options: Counts1 Year3 YearSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Citations17
- Citation Indexes16
- 16
- Policy Citations1
- Policy Citation1
- Captures52
- Readers52
- 52
- Mentions1
- News Mentions1
- News1
Most Recent News
The Fragility of P-Values
The pressure for medical treatment for COVID generated lots and lots of studies. Some good, some awful, few peer-reviewed before being widely and wildly disseminated. A new study looks at how we might separate the good from the bad and ugly.
Article Description
Importance: Interpreting results from randomized clinical trials (RCTs) for COVID-19, which have been published rapidly and in vast numbers, is challenging during a pandemic. Objective: To evaluate the robustness of statistically significant findings from RCTs for COVID-19 using the fragility index. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study included COVID-19 trial articles that randomly assigned patients 1:1 into 2 parallel groups and reported at least 1 binary outcome as significant in the abstract. A systematic search was conducted using PubMed to identify RCTs on COVID-19 published until August 7, 2021. Exposures: Trial characteristics, such as type of intervention (treatment drug, vaccine, or others), number of outcome events, and sample size. Main Outcomes and Measures: Fragility index. Results: Of the 47 RCTs for COVID-19 included, 36 (77%) were studies of the effects of treatment drugs, 5 (11%) were studies of vaccines, and 6 (13%) were of other interventions. A total of 138235 participants were included in these trials. The median (IQR) fragility index of the included trials was 4 (1-11). The medians (IQRs) of the fragility indexes of RCTs of treatment drugs, vaccines, and other interventions were 2.5 (1-6), 119 (61-139), and 4.5 (1-18), respectively. The fragility index among more than half of the studies was less than 1% of each sample size, although the fragility index as a proportion of events needing to change would be much higher. Conclusions and Relevance: This cross-sectional study found a relatively small number of events (a median of 4) would be required to change the results of COVID-19 RCTs from statistically significant to not significant. These findings suggest that health care professionals and policy makers should not rely heavily on individual results of RCTs for COVID-19..
Bibliographic Details
http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85126659234&origin=inward; http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.2973; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35302631; https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2790259; https://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.2973
American Medical Association (AMA)
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know