Statistical Fragility of Single-Row Versus Double-Row Anchoring for Rotator Cuff Repair: A Systematic Review of Comparative Studies

23Citations
Citations of this article
14Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Background: Comparative studies and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) often use the P (probability) value to convey the statistical significance of their findings. P values are an imperfect measure, however, and are vulnerable to a small number of outcome reversals to alter statistical significance. The inclusion of a fragility index (FI) and fragility quotient (FQ) may aid in the interpretation of a study’s statistical strength. Purpose/Hypothesis: The purpose of this study was to examine the statistical stability of studies comparing single-row to double-row rotator cuff repair. It was hypothesized that the findings of these studies would be vulnerable to a small number of outcome event reversals, often fewer than the number of patients lost to follow-up. Study Design: Systematic review; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: We analyzed comparative studies and RCTs on primary single-row versus double-row rotator cuff repair that were published between 2000 and 2021 in 10 leading orthopaedic journals. Statistical significance was defined as a P

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Fackler, N. P., Ehlers, C. B., Callan, K. T., Amirhekmat, A., Smith, E. J., Parisien, R. L., & Wang, D. (2022, May 1). Statistical Fragility of Single-Row Versus Double-Row Anchoring for Rotator Cuff Repair: A Systematic Review of Comparative Studies. Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine. SAGE Publications Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1177/23259671221093391

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free