The fragility index and reverse fragility index of FDA investigational device exemption trials in spinal fusion surgery: a systematic review.

Autor: Proal JD; Tufts University School of Medicine, 145 Harrison Ave, Boston, MA, 02111, USA. joshua.proal@tufts.edu., Moon AS; Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Tufts Medical Center, Tufts University School of Medicine, 800 Washington St, Tufts MC Box #306, Boston, MA, 02111, USA., Kwon B; New England Baptist Hospital, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, 125 Parker Hill Ave, Boston, MA, 02120, USA.
Jazyk: angličtina
Zdroj: European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society [Eur Spine J] 2024 Jul; Vol. 33 (7), pp. 2594-2603. Date of Electronic Publication: 2024 May 27.
DOI: 10.1007/s00586-024-08317-3
Abstrakt: Purpose: FDA investigational device exemption (IDE) studies are considered a gold standard of assessing safety and efficacy of novel devices through RCTs. The fragility index (FI) has emerged as a means to assess robustness of statistically significant study results and inversely, the reverse fragility index (RFI) for non-significant differences. Previous authors have defined results as fragile if loss to follow up is greater than the FI or RFI. The aim of this study was to assess the FI, RFI, and robustness of data supplied by IDE studies in spinal surgery.
Methods: This was a systematic review of the literature. Inclusion criteria included randomized controlled trials with dichotomous outcome measures conducted under IDE guidelines between 2000 and 2023. FI and RFI were calculated through successively changing events to non-events until the outcome changed to non-significance or significance, respectively. The fragility quotient (FQ) and reverse fragility quotient (RFQ) were calculated by dividing the FI and RFI, respectively, by the sample size.
Results: Thirty-two studies met inclusion criteria with a total of 40 unique outcome measures; 240 outcomes were analyzed. Twenty-six studies reported 96 statistically significant results. The median FI was 6 (IQR: 3-9.25), and patients lost to follow up was greater than the FI in 99.0% (95/96) of results. The average FQ was 0.027. Thirty studies reported 144 statistically insignificant results and a median RFI of 6 (IQR: 4-8). The average RFQ extrapolated was 0.021, and loss to follow up was greater than the RFI in 98.6% (142/144) of results.
Conclusions: IDE studies in spine surgery are surprisingly fragile given their reputations, large sample sizes, and intent to establish safety in investigational devices. This study found a median FI and RFI of 6. The number of patients lost to follow-up was greater than FIand RFI in 98.8% (237/240) of reported outcomes. FQ and RFQ tell us that changes of two to three patients per hundred can flip the significance of reported outcomes. This is an important reminder of the limitations of RCTs. Analysis of fragility in future studies may help clarify the strength of the relationship between reported data and their conclusions.
(© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.)
Databáze: MEDLINE
Externí odkaz: