Abstract
Background Fragility analysis supplements the p-value and risk of bias assessment in the interpretation of results of randomised controlled trials. In this systematic review we determine the fragility index (FI) and fragility quotient (FQ) of randomized trials in aneurysmal subarachnoid haemorrhage.
Methods This is a systematic review registered with PROSPERO (ID: CRD42020173604). Randomised controlled trials in adults with aneurysmal subarachnoid haemorrhage were analysed if they reported a statistically significant primary outcome of mortality, function (e.g. modified Rankin Scale), vasospasm or delayed neurological deterioration.
Results We identified 3809 records with 17 randomized trials selected for analysis. The median fragility index was 3 (inter-quartile range 0-5) and the median fragility quotient was 0.012 (IQR 0-0.034). Six of nineteen trial outcomes (31.6%) had an fragility index of 0. In seven trials (36.8%), the number of participants lost to follow-up was greater than or equal to the fragility index. Only 17.6% of trials are at low risk of bias.
Conclusions Randomised controlled trial evidence supporting management of aneurysmal subarachnoid haemorrhage is weaker than indicated by conventional analysis using p-values alone. Increased use of fragility analysis by clinicians and researchers could improve the translation of evidence to practice.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
No external funding received
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
No IRB approval required
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
Data available on application to corresponding author.
