What is it about?
This study compared different metrics for evaluating the fragility and clinical relevance of research results. The fragility index strongly correlated with p-values in simulated data. However, the relative risk index showed only a weak correlation. This suggests relative risk better captures clinical meaning beyond statistical significance.
Featured Image
Photo by Edge2Edge Media on Unsplash
Why is it important?
The fragility index is widely used to assess research robustness. However, this study found it mainly duplicates the information from p-values. The relative risk index appears to provide unique insight into clinical relevance. This novel metric warrants more real-world testing. However, it may enable better evaluation of research findings to guide evidence-based practice.
Perspectives
As a clinician-researcher, this study resonates with me. I've seen many statistically significant findings that don't hold up in clinical practice. Statistical significance doesn't equal clinical significance. The relative risk index focuses on the most critical outcomes - whether a treatment helps patients. I'm eager to investigate this further when appraising research findings. It may help identify those rare studies that are genuinely practice-changing. With increasing emphasis on evidence-based practice, better tools for critical appraisal are sorely needed. The relative risk index shows promise as a valuable addition to the methodological toolbox.
Thomas F Heston MD
University of Washington
Read the Original
This page is a summary of: Statistical Significance Versus Clinical Relevance: A Head-to-Head Comparison of the Fragility Index and Relative Risk Index, Cureus, October 2023, Springer Science + Business Media,
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.47741.
You can read the full text:
Resources
Contributors
The following have contributed to this page
