Abstract
Objectives
Determine the statistical stability of RCTs examining primary and secondary prevention of ankle sprains.
Methods
Databases were searched to August 2023. We included parallel design RCTs, using conservative interventions for preventing ankle sprain, reporting dichotomous injury event outcomes. Statistical stability was quantified using Fragility Index (FI) and Fragility Quotient (FQ). Subgroup analyses were undertaken to test if FI varied based on by study objective, original approach to analysis (frequency vs time to event), follow-up duration, and pre-registration.
Results
3559 studies were screened with 45 RCTs included. The median number of events required to change the statistical significance (FI) was 4 (IQR 1-6). FI was similar regardless of study objective, original analysis, follow-up duration, and pre-registration status. Median (IQR) FQ was 0.015 (0.005-0.046), therefore reversing events <2 patients/100 would alter significance. In 80% of studies the number of patients lost to follow-up was greater than the FI.
Conclusion
RCTs informing primary and secondary prevention of ankle sprain are fragile. Only a small percentage of outcome event reversals would reverse study significance, and this is often exceeded by the number of drop outs. Robust reporting of dichotomous outcomes requires the use P values and key metrics such as FI or FQ.
Determine the statistical stability of RCTs examining primary and secondary prevention of ankle sprains.
Methods
Databases were searched to August 2023. We included parallel design RCTs, using conservative interventions for preventing ankle sprain, reporting dichotomous injury event outcomes. Statistical stability was quantified using Fragility Index (FI) and Fragility Quotient (FQ). Subgroup analyses were undertaken to test if FI varied based on by study objective, original approach to analysis (frequency vs time to event), follow-up duration, and pre-registration.
Results
3559 studies were screened with 45 RCTs included. The median number of events required to change the statistical significance (FI) was 4 (IQR 1-6). FI was similar regardless of study objective, original analysis, follow-up duration, and pre-registration status. Median (IQR) FQ was 0.015 (0.005-0.046), therefore reversing events <2 patients/100 would alter significance. In 80% of studies the number of patients lost to follow-up was greater than the FI.
Conclusion
RCTs informing primary and secondary prevention of ankle sprain are fragile. Only a small percentage of outcome event reversals would reverse study significance, and this is often exceeded by the number of drop outs. Robust reporting of dichotomous outcomes requires the use P values and key metrics such as FI or FQ.
Original language | English |
---|---|
Pages (from-to) | 85-90 |
Number of pages | 6 |
Journal | Physical Therapy in Sport |
Volume | 64 |
Early online date | 26 Aug 2023 |
DOIs | |
Publication status | Published (in print/issue) - 1 Nov 2023 |
Bibliographical note
Publisher Copyright:© 2023 Elsevier Ltd
Keywords
- P values
- Statistical Fragility
- Injury Prevention
- Ankle sprain
- Statistical fragility
- Injury prevention