• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

使用脆弱性指数评估血管外科荟萃分析的稳健性:一项横断面研究。

Assessing the robustness of vascular surgery meta-analyses using the Fragility Index: a cross-sectional study.

作者信息

Li Jiacheng, Guo Yi, Weng Chengxin, Wang Tiehao, Lu Wei, Lin Lihong, Wu Jiawen, Cheng Guobing, Hu Qiang

机构信息

Department of Vascular Surgery, The Quzhou Affiliated Hospital of Wenzhou Medical University, Quzhou People's Hospital, Quzhou, Zhejiang, China.

Department of Nosocomial Infection Control, The Quzhou Affiliated Hospital of Wenzhou Medical University, Quzhou People's Hospital, Quzhou, Zhejiang, China

出版信息

BMJ Open. 2025 May 2;15(5):e098320. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2024-098320.

DOI:10.1136/bmjopen-2024-098320
PMID:40316351
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12049906/
Abstract

OBJECTIVES

To systematically assess the robustness of meta-analyses based on randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in vascular surgery using the Fragility Index (FI).

DESIGN

Cross-sectional study.

SETTING

Meta-analyses published in English from January 2019 to April 2025, identified from EMBASE, PubMed and Web of Science.

PARTICIPANTS

67 articles, with 291 meta-analyses involving RCTs evaluating vascular surgical interventions, covering venous, aortic, peripheral arterial, vascular access and other relevant fields.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

FI, defined as the minimum number of event changes required to alter the statistical significance of meta-analysis results, and its association with sample size and total number of events, analysed using frequency distribution histograms and restricted cubic spline models.

RESULTS

The median FI was 7, with considerable variation across different fields. Aortic meta-analyses demonstrated higher robustness compared with venous and vascular access meta-analyses. FI showed a non-linear relationship with sample size and total number of events, indicating robustness improved only up to specific thresholds, beyond which robustness declined or plateaued.

CONCLUSION

Overall robustness of meta-analyses in vascular surgery was moderate, with notable variability among research areas. FI provides valuable insight into the stability of synthesised evidence, suggesting the need for improved methodological quality and advocating broader adoption of FI in meta-analytical research.

摘要

目的

使用脆弱性指数(FI)系统评估基于血管外科随机对照试验(RCT)的荟萃分析的稳健性。

设计

横断面研究。

背景

2019年1月至2025年4月以英文发表的荟萃分析,从EMBASE、PubMed和科学网中识别。

参与者

67篇文章,其中291项荟萃分析涉及评估血管外科干预措施的RCT,涵盖静脉、主动脉、外周动脉、血管通路及其他相关领域。

主要结局指标

FI定义为改变荟萃分析结果统计学显著性所需的最小事件变化数,使用频率分布直方图和受限立方样条模型分析其与样本量和事件总数的关联。

结果

FI中位数为7,不同领域差异较大。与静脉和血管通路荟萃分析相比,主动脉荟萃分析显示出更高的稳健性。FI与样本量和事件总数呈非线性关系,表明稳健性仅在特定阈值之前有所提高,超过该阈值后稳健性下降或趋于平稳。

结论

血管外科荟萃分析的总体稳健性中等,各研究领域存在显著差异。FI为综合证据的稳定性提供了有价值的见解,表明需要提高方法学质量,并提倡在荟萃分析研究中更广泛地采用FI。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/1593/12049906/dd10cfe2e656/bmjopen-15-5-g004.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/1593/12049906/8028349e162a/bmjopen-15-5-g001.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/1593/12049906/f5cf34b2d71e/bmjopen-15-5-g002.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/1593/12049906/cf94895c1ac5/bmjopen-15-5-g003.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/1593/12049906/dd10cfe2e656/bmjopen-15-5-g004.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/1593/12049906/8028349e162a/bmjopen-15-5-g001.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/1593/12049906/f5cf34b2d71e/bmjopen-15-5-g002.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/1593/12049906/cf94895c1ac5/bmjopen-15-5-g003.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/1593/12049906/dd10cfe2e656/bmjopen-15-5-g004.jpg

相似文献

1
Assessing the robustness of vascular surgery meta-analyses using the Fragility Index: a cross-sectional study.使用脆弱性指数评估血管外科荟萃分析的稳健性:一项横断面研究。
BMJ Open. 2025 May 2;15(5):e098320. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2024-098320.
2
Assessing the robustness of positive vascular surgery randomized controlled trials using their fragility index.评估阳性血管外科学随机对照试验的稳健性:脆弱指数的应用。
J Vasc Surg. 2024 Jan;79(1):148-158.e3. doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2023.05.051. Epub 2023 Jun 12.
3
Folic acid supplementation and malaria susceptibility and severity among people taking antifolate antimalarial drugs in endemic areas.在流行地区,服用抗叶酸抗疟药物的人群中,叶酸补充剂与疟疾易感性和严重程度的关系。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022 Feb 1;2(2022):CD014217. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD014217.
4
Robustness of Longitudinal Safety and Efficacy After Paclitaxel-Based Endovascular Therapy for Treatment of Femoro-Popliteal Artery Occlusive Disease: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.基于紫杉醇的腔内治疗治疗股腘动脉闭塞性疾病的纵向安全性和疗效的稳健性:随机对照试验的更新系统评价和荟萃分析。
Ann Vasc Surg. 2024 Apr;101:164-178. doi: 10.1016/j.avsg.2023.11.024. Epub 2023 Dec 26.
5
Fragility of cardiovascular outcome trials (CVOTs) examining nutrition interventions among patients with diabetes mellitus: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials.评估糖尿病患者营养干预的心血管结局试验(CVOTs)的脆弱性:一项随机对照试验的系统评价。
Hormones (Athens). 2022 Dec;21(4):665-681. doi: 10.1007/s42000-022-00396-5. Epub 2022 Sep 21.
6
The Role of Double-Zero-Event Studies in Evidence Synthesis: Evaluating Robustness Using the Fragility Index.双零事件研究在证据综合中的作用:使用脆弱性指数评估稳健性。
J Eval Clin Pract. 2025 Feb;31(1):e14301. doi: 10.1111/jep.14301.
7
The fragility of statistical findings in the reverse total shoulder arthroplasty literature: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials.反式全肩关节置换文献中统计学结果的脆弱性:一项随机对照试验的系统评价。
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2024 Jul;33(7):1650-1658. doi: 10.1016/j.jse.2023.12.005. Epub 2024 Jan 27.
8
An analysis of randomized controlled trials on anal fistula conducted between 2000 and 2020 based on the Fragility Index and Reverse Fragility Index.基于脆弱指数和反向脆弱指数分析 2000 年至 2020 年期间进行的肛门瘘随机对照试验。
Colorectal Dis. 2023 Aug;25(8):1572-1577. doi: 10.1111/codi.16645. Epub 2023 Jul 3.
9
Fragility of clinical trials across research fields: A synthesis of methodological reviews.各研究领域临床试验的脆弱性:方法学综述的综合分析。
Contemp Clin Trials. 2020 Oct;97:106151. doi: 10.1016/j.cct.2020.106151. Epub 2020 Sep 15.
10
Fragility of results from randomized controlled trials supporting the guidelines for the treatment of osteoporosis: a retrospective analysis.随机对照试验结果的脆弱性支持骨质疏松症治疗指南:回顾性分析。
Osteoporos Int. 2021 Sep;32(9):1713-1723. doi: 10.1007/s00198-021-05865-y. Epub 2021 Feb 17.

本文引用的文献

1
Assessing the robustness of positive vascular surgery randomized controlled trials using their fragility index.评估阳性血管外科学随机对照试验的稳健性:脆弱指数的应用。
J Vasc Surg. 2024 Jan;79(1):148-158.e3. doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2023.05.051. Epub 2023 Jun 12.
2
Completeness of reporting in systematic reviews and meta-analyses in vascular surgery.血管外科学系统评价和荟萃分析中的报告完整性。
J Vasc Surg. 2023 Dec;78(6):1550-1558.e2. doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2023.04.009. Epub 2023 Apr 15.
3
Assessing the robustness of negative vascular surgery randomized controlled trials using their reverse fragility index.
评估阴性血管外科学随机对照试验的稳健性:使用其反向脆弱指数。
J Vasc Surg. 2023 Jul;78(1):253-259.e11. doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2022.12.029. Epub 2022 Dec 23.
4
Thresholds for interpreting the fragility index derived from sample of randomised controlled trials in cardiology: a meta-epidemiologic study.从随机对照试验样本中得出的脆性指数的解释阈值:一项荟萃流行病学研究。
BMJ Evid Based Med. 2023 Apr;28(2):133-136. doi: 10.1136/bmjebm-2021-111858. Epub 2022 Mar 9.
5
Fragility Index of Recently Published Meta-Analyses in Pediatric Urology: A Striking Observation.小儿泌尿外科近期发表的荟萃分析的脆弱性指数:一项引人注目的观察结果。
Cureus. 2021 Jul 7;13(7):e16225. doi: 10.7759/cureus.16225. eCollection 2021 Jul.
6
The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews.PRISMA 2020 声明:系统评价报告的更新指南。
Int J Surg. 2021 Apr;88:105906. doi: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2021.105906. Epub 2021 Mar 29.
7
Meta-analyses in paediatric surgery are often fragile: implications and consequences.儿科外科学中的荟萃分析往往很脆弱:影响和后果。
Pediatr Surg Int. 2021 Mar;37(3):363-367. doi: 10.1007/s00383-020-04827-5. Epub 2021 Jan 16.
8
Calculation of the fragility index of randomized controlled trials in epilepsy published in twelve major journals.计算发表在 12 大期刊的癫痫随机对照试验的脆弱指数。
Epilepsy Res. 2020 Jan;159:106258. doi: 10.1016/j.eplepsyres.2019.106258. Epub 2019 Dec 17.
9
The fragility of phase 3 trials supporting FDA-approved anticancer medicines: a retrospective analysis.支持美国食品和药物管理局批准的抗癌药物的 3 期试验的脆弱性:回顾性分析。
Lancet Oncol. 2019 Aug;20(8):1065-1069. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(19)30338-9. Epub 2019 Jul 8.
10
The statistical significance of meta-analyses is frequently fragile: definition of a fragility index for meta-analyses.荟萃分析的统计学意义通常很脆弱:荟萃分析脆弱指数的定义。
J Clin Epidemiol. 2019 Jul;111:32-40. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.03.012. Epub 2019 Mar 30.