Abstract:Purpose: To (1) analyze trends in the publishing of statistical fragility index (FI)-based systematic reviews in the orthopaedic literature, including the prevalence of misleading or inaccurate statements related to the statistical fragility of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and patients lost to follow-up (LTF), and (2) determine whether RCTs with relatively "low" FIs are truly as sensitive to patients LTF as previously portrayed in the literature. Methods: All FI-based studies published in the orthopaedic literature were identified using the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Web of Science Core Collection, PubMed, and MEDLINE databases. All articles involving application of the FI or reverse FI to study the statistical fragility of studies in orthopaedics were eligible for inclusion in the study. Study characteristics, median FIs and sample sizes, and misleading or inaccurate statements related to the FI and patients LTF were recorded. Misleading or inaccurate statements-defined as those basing conclusions of trial fragility on the false assumption that adding patients LTF back to a trial has the same statistical effect as existing patients in a trial experiencing the opposite outcome-were determined by 2 authors. A theoretical RCT with a sample size of 100, P = .006, and FI of 4 was used to evaluate the difference in effect on statistical significance between flipping outcome events of patients already included in the trial (FI) and adding patients LTF back to the trial to show the true sensitivity of RCTs to patients LTF. Results: Of the 39 FI-based studies, 37 (95%) directly compared the FI with the number of patients LTF. Of these 37 studies, 22 (59%) included a statement regarding the FI and patients LTF that was determined to be inaccurate or misleading. In the theoretical RCT, a reversal of significance was not observed until 7 patients LTF (nearly twice the FI) were added to the trial in the distribution of maximal significance reversal. Conclusions: The claim that any RCT in which the number of patients LTF exceeds the FI could potentially have its significance reversed simply by maintaining study follow-ups is commonly inaccurate and prevalent in orthopaedic studies applying the FI. Patients LTF and the FI are not equivalent. The minimum number of patients LTF required to flip the significance of a typical RCT was shown to be greater than the FI, suggesting that RCTs with relatively low FIs may not be as sensitive to patients LTF as previously portrayed in the literature; however, only a holistic approach that considers the context in which the trial was conducted, potential biases, and study results can determine the merits of any particular RCT. Clinical relevance: Surgeons may benefit from re-examining their interpretation of prior FI reviews that have made claims of substantial RCT fragility based on comparisons between the FI and patients LTF; it is possible the results are more robust than previously believed.

The Statistical Fragility of Lateral Extra-articular Tenodesis Research: A Systematic Review

Statistical Fragility Analysis of Open Reduction Internal Fixation vs Primary Arthrodesis to Treat Lisfranc Injuries: A Systematic Review

The Statistical Fragility of Patellar Resurfacing in Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials

Fragility analysis and systematic review of patellar resurfacing versus non-patellar resurfacing in total knee arthroplasty

The Fragility of Statistical Findings in the Femoral Neck Fracture Literature: A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials

An Analysis of Clinical Outcomes and Failure Rates

Interpreting the Current Literature on Outcomes of Robotic-Assisted Versus Conventional Total Knee Arthroplasty Using Fragility Analysis: A Systematic Review and Cross-Sectional Study of Randomized Controlled Trials

How statistically fragile are randomized controlled trials comparing quadriceps tendon autografts with hamstring or bone‐patellar tendon‐bone autografts in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction?

Statistical Outcomes Guiding Periprosthetic Joint Infection Prevention and Revision Are Fragile: A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials

Statistical Fragility of Randomized Controlled Trials Evaluating Rehabilitation After Arthroscopic Rotator Cuff Repair

The Statistical Fragility of Tranexamic Acid Use in the Orthopaedic Surgery Literature: A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials

The Continuous Fragility Index of Statistically Significant Findings in Randomized Controlled Trials That Compare Interventions for Anterior Shoulder Instability

The Role of Anterolateral Ligament Reconstruction or Lateral Extra-articular Tenodesis for Revision Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Comparative Clinical Studies

Reverse Fragility Index: Comparing Revision Rates Between Direct Anterior and Other Approaches in Total Hip Arthroplasty. A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials

The Statistical Fragility of Marrow Stimulation for Cartilage Defects of the Knee: A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials

Can lateral tenodesis improve the rotational stability of the ACL reconstruction? A finite element analysis

Assessing Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Combined with Lateral Extra-Articular Tenodesis or Anterolateral Ligament Reconstruction Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

The Number of Patients Lost to Follow-Up May Exceed the Fragility Index of a Randomized Controlled Trial Without Reversing Statistical Significance: A Systematic Review and Statistical Model

Comparison of Onlay Anchor Fixation Versus Transosseous Fixation for Lateral Extra-articular Tenodesis During Revision ACL Reconstruction

The Fragility of Statistical Findings in Cervical Disc Arthroplasty: a Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials

The Reverse Fragility Index: Interpreting the Evidence for Arthroscopic Rotator Cuff Repair Healing Associated With Early Versus Delayed Mobilization