» Articles » PMID: 35648746

Assessing and Visualizing Fragility of Clinical Results with Binary Outcomes in R Using the Fragility Package

Overview
Journal PLoS One
Date 2022 Jun 1
PMID 35648746
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

With the growing concerns about research reproducibility and replicability, the assessment of scientific results' fragility (or robustness) has been of increasing interest. The fragility index was proposed to quantify the robustness of statistical significance of clinical studies with binary outcomes. It is defined as the minimal event status modifications that can alter statistical significance. It helps clinicians evaluate the reliability of the conclusions. Many factors may affect the fragility index, including the treatment groups in which event status is modified, the statistical methods used for testing for the association between treatments and outcomes, and the pre-specified significance level. In addition to assessing the fragility of individual studies, the fragility index was recently extended to both conventional pairwise meta-analyses and network meta-analyses of multiple treatment comparisons. It is not straightforward for clinicians to calculate these measures and visualize the results. We have developed an R package called "fragility" to offer user-friendly functions for such purposes. This article provides an overview of methods for assessing and visualizing the fragility of individual studies as well as pairwise and network meta-analyses, introduces the usage of the "fragility" package, and illustrates the implementations with several worked examples.

Citing Articles

The Role of Double-Zero-Event Studies in Evidence Synthesis: Evaluating Robustness Using the Fragility Index.

Wang Z, Xing X, Mun E, Wu C, Lin L J Eval Clin Pract. 2025; 31(1):e14301.

PMID: 39780615 PMC: 11735258. DOI: 10.1111/jep.14301.


Living alone predicts non-home discharge post elective hip arthroplasty: A matched-pair cohort study.

Agnor B, Knio Z, Zuo Z PLoS One. 2025; 20(1):e0316024.

PMID: 39746111 PMC: 11694960. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0316024.


Lupus nephritis randomised controlled trials: evidence gaps and under-represented groups.

Nordmann-Gomes A, Cojuc-Konigsberg G, Hernandez-Andrade A, Navarro-Sanchez V, Ramirez-Sandoval J, Rovin B Lupus Sci Med. 2024; 11(2).

PMID: 39706676 PMC: 11664369. DOI: 10.1136/lupus-2024-001331.


Robustness Assessment of Oncology Dose-Finding Trials Using the Modified Fragility Index.

Shi A, Zhou H, Nie L, Lin L, Li H, Chu H Cancers (Basel). 2024; 16(20).

PMID: 39456598 PMC: 11506443. DOI: 10.3390/cancers16203504.


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

Polisetty T, Hohmann A, DiDomenico E, Lonner J J Exp Orthop. 2024; 11(3):e12113.

PMID: 39108460 PMC: 11301444. DOI: 10.1002/jeo2.12113.


References
1.
Sideri S, Papageorgiou S, Eliades T . Registration in the international prospective register of systematic reviews (PROSPERO) of systematic review protocols was associated with increased review quality. J Clin Epidemiol. 2018; 100:103-110. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2018.01.003. View

2.
Ioannidis J, Ntzani E, Trikalinos T, Contopoulos-Ioannidis D . Replication validity of genetic association studies. Nat Genet. 2001; 29(3):306-9. DOI: 10.1038/ng749. View

3.
Walter S . Statistical significance and fragility criteria for assessing a difference of two proportions. J Clin Epidemiol. 1991; 44(12):1373-8. DOI: 10.1016/0895-4356(91)90098-t. View

4.
Chu H, Nie L, Chen Y, Huang Y, Sun W . Bivariate random effects models for meta-analysis of comparative studies with binary outcomes: methods for the absolute risk difference and relative risk. Stat Methods Med Res. 2010; 21(6):621-33. PMC: 3348438. DOI: 10.1177/0962280210393712. View

5.
DerSimonian R, Laird N . Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials. 1986; 7(3):177-88. DOI: 10.1016/0197-2456(86)90046-2. View