Cargando…

The Statistical Fragility of Single-Bundle vs Double-Bundle Autografts for ACL Reconstruction: A Systematic Review of Comparative Studies

BACKGROUND: The statistical significance of a given study outcome can be liable to small changes in findings. P values are common, but imperfect statistical methods to convey significance, and inclusion of the fragility index (FI) and fragility quotient (FQ) may provide a clearer perception of stati...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Ehlers, Cooper B., Curley, Andrew J., Fackler, Nathan P., Minhas, Arjun, Rodriguez, Ariel N., Pasko, Kory, Chang, Edward S.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: SAGE Publications 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8721389/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34988239
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/23259671211064626
_version_ 1784625330741313536
author Ehlers, Cooper B.
Curley, Andrew J.
Fackler, Nathan P.
Minhas, Arjun
Rodriguez, Ariel N.
Pasko, Kory
Chang, Edward S.
author_facet Ehlers, Cooper B.
Curley, Andrew J.
Fackler, Nathan P.
Minhas, Arjun
Rodriguez, Ariel N.
Pasko, Kory
Chang, Edward S.
author_sort Ehlers, Cooper B.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: The statistical significance of a given study outcome can be liable to small changes in findings. P values are common, but imperfect statistical methods to convey significance, and inclusion of the fragility index (FI) and fragility quotient (FQ) may provide a clearer perception of statistical strength. PURPOSE/HYPOTHESIS: The purpose was to examine the statistical stability of studies comparing primary single-bundle to double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) utilizing autograft and independent tunnel drilling. It was hypothesized that the study findings would be vulnerable to a small number of outcome event reversals, often less than the number of patients lost to follow-up. STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review; Level of evidence, 2. METHODS: Following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, the authors searched PubMed for comparative studies and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in select journals, based on impact factor, between 2005 and 2020. Risk-of-bias assessment and methodology scoring were conducted for the included studies. A total of 48 dichotomous outcome measures were examined for possible event reversals. The FI for each outcome was determined by the number of event reversals necessary to alter significance. The FQ was calculated by dividing the FI by the respective sample size. RESULTS: Of the 1794 studies screened, 15 comparative studies were included for analysis; 13 studies were RCTs. Overall, the mean FI and FQ were 3.14 (IQR, 2-4) and 0.050 (IQR, 0.032-0.062), respectively. For 72.9% of outcomes, the FI was less than the number of patients lost to follow-up. CONCLUSION: Studies comparing single-bundle versus double-bundle ACLR may not be as statistically stable as previously thought. Comparative studies and RCTs are at substantial risk for statistical fragility, with few event reversals required to alter significance. The reversal of fewer than 4 outcome events in a treatment group can alter the statistical significance of a given result; this is commonly less than the number of patients lost to follow-up. Future comparative study analyses might consider including FI and FQ with P values in their statistical analysis.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8721389
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher SAGE Publications
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-87213892022-01-04 The Statistical Fragility of Single-Bundle vs Double-Bundle Autografts for ACL Reconstruction: A Systematic Review of Comparative Studies Ehlers, Cooper B. Curley, Andrew J. Fackler, Nathan P. Minhas, Arjun Rodriguez, Ariel N. Pasko, Kory Chang, Edward S. Orthop J Sports Med Article BACKGROUND: The statistical significance of a given study outcome can be liable to small changes in findings. P values are common, but imperfect statistical methods to convey significance, and inclusion of the fragility index (FI) and fragility quotient (FQ) may provide a clearer perception of statistical strength. PURPOSE/HYPOTHESIS: The purpose was to examine the statistical stability of studies comparing primary single-bundle to double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) utilizing autograft and independent tunnel drilling. It was hypothesized that the study findings would be vulnerable to a small number of outcome event reversals, often less than the number of patients lost to follow-up. STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review; Level of evidence, 2. METHODS: Following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, the authors searched PubMed for comparative studies and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in select journals, based on impact factor, between 2005 and 2020. Risk-of-bias assessment and methodology scoring were conducted for the included studies. A total of 48 dichotomous outcome measures were examined for possible event reversals. The FI for each outcome was determined by the number of event reversals necessary to alter significance. The FQ was calculated by dividing the FI by the respective sample size. RESULTS: Of the 1794 studies screened, 15 comparative studies were included for analysis; 13 studies were RCTs. Overall, the mean FI and FQ were 3.14 (IQR, 2-4) and 0.050 (IQR, 0.032-0.062), respectively. For 72.9% of outcomes, the FI was less than the number of patients lost to follow-up. CONCLUSION: Studies comparing single-bundle versus double-bundle ACLR may not be as statistically stable as previously thought. Comparative studies and RCTs are at substantial risk for statistical fragility, with few event reversals required to alter significance. The reversal of fewer than 4 outcome events in a treatment group can alter the statistical significance of a given result; this is commonly less than the number of patients lost to follow-up. Future comparative study analyses might consider including FI and FQ with P values in their statistical analysis. SAGE Publications 2021-12-20 /pmc/articles/PMC8721389/ /pubmed/34988239 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/23259671211064626 Text en © The Author(s) 2021 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0 License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) which permits non-commercial use, reproduction and distribution of the work as published without adaptation or alteration, without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).
spellingShingle Article
Ehlers, Cooper B.
Curley, Andrew J.
Fackler, Nathan P.
Minhas, Arjun
Rodriguez, Ariel N.
Pasko, Kory
Chang, Edward S.
The Statistical Fragility of Single-Bundle vs Double-Bundle Autografts for ACL Reconstruction: A Systematic Review of Comparative Studies
title The Statistical Fragility of Single-Bundle vs Double-Bundle Autografts for ACL Reconstruction: A Systematic Review of Comparative Studies
title_full The Statistical Fragility of Single-Bundle vs Double-Bundle Autografts for ACL Reconstruction: A Systematic Review of Comparative Studies
title_fullStr The Statistical Fragility of Single-Bundle vs Double-Bundle Autografts for ACL Reconstruction: A Systematic Review of Comparative Studies
title_full_unstemmed The Statistical Fragility of Single-Bundle vs Double-Bundle Autografts for ACL Reconstruction: A Systematic Review of Comparative Studies
title_short The Statistical Fragility of Single-Bundle vs Double-Bundle Autografts for ACL Reconstruction: A Systematic Review of Comparative Studies
title_sort statistical fragility of single-bundle vs double-bundle autografts for acl reconstruction: a systematic review of comparative studies
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8721389/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34988239
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/23259671211064626
work_keys_str_mv AT ehlerscooperb thestatisticalfragilityofsinglebundlevsdoublebundleautograftsforaclreconstructionasystematicreviewofcomparativestudies
AT curleyandrewj thestatisticalfragilityofsinglebundlevsdoublebundleautograftsforaclreconstructionasystematicreviewofcomparativestudies
AT facklernathanp thestatisticalfragilityofsinglebundlevsdoublebundleautograftsforaclreconstructionasystematicreviewofcomparativestudies
AT minhasarjun thestatisticalfragilityofsinglebundlevsdoublebundleautograftsforaclreconstructionasystematicreviewofcomparativestudies
AT rodriguezarieln thestatisticalfragilityofsinglebundlevsdoublebundleautograftsforaclreconstructionasystematicreviewofcomparativestudies
AT paskokory thestatisticalfragilityofsinglebundlevsdoublebundleautograftsforaclreconstructionasystematicreviewofcomparativestudies
AT changedwards thestatisticalfragilityofsinglebundlevsdoublebundleautograftsforaclreconstructionasystematicreviewofcomparativestudies
AT ehlerscooperb statisticalfragilityofsinglebundlevsdoublebundleautograftsforaclreconstructionasystematicreviewofcomparativestudies
AT curleyandrewj statisticalfragilityofsinglebundlevsdoublebundleautograftsforaclreconstructionasystematicreviewofcomparativestudies
AT facklernathanp statisticalfragilityofsinglebundlevsdoublebundleautograftsforaclreconstructionasystematicreviewofcomparativestudies
AT minhasarjun statisticalfragilityofsinglebundlevsdoublebundleautograftsforaclreconstructionasystematicreviewofcomparativestudies
AT rodriguezarieln statisticalfragilityofsinglebundlevsdoublebundleautograftsforaclreconstructionasystematicreviewofcomparativestudies
AT paskokory statisticalfragilityofsinglebundlevsdoublebundleautograftsforaclreconstructionasystematicreviewofcomparativestudies
AT changedwards statisticalfragilityofsinglebundlevsdoublebundleautograftsforaclreconstructionasystematicreviewofcomparativestudies