The statistical significance of randomized controlled trial results is frequently fragile: a case for a Fragility Index
Top Cited Papers
Open Access
- 17 February 2014
- journal article
- review article
- Published by Elsevier BV in Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
- Vol. 67 (6), 622-628
- https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.10.019
Abstract
No abstract availableKeywords
This publication has 13 references indexed in Scilit:
- The Number of Patients and Events Required to Limit the Risk of Overestimation of Intervention Effects in Meta-Analysis—A Simulation StudyPLOS ONE, 2011
- Contradicted and Initially Stronger Effects in Highly Cited Clinical ResearchJAMA, 2005
- Sifting the evidence---what's wrong with significance tests? Another comment on the role of statistical methodsBMJ, 2001
- ISIS-4: A randomised factorial trial assessing early oral captopril, oral mononitrate, and intravenous magnesium sulphate in 58 050 patients with suspected acute myocardial infarctionThe Lancet, 1995
- Intravenous magnesium sulphate in suspected acute myocardial infarction: results of the second Leicester Intravenous Magnesium Intervention Trial (LIMIT-2)The Lancet, 1992
- Statistical significance and fragility criteria for assessing a difference of two proportionsJournal of Clinical Epidemiology, 1991
- The unit fragility index: An additional appraisal of “statistical significance” for a contrast of two proportionsJournal of Clinical Epidemiology, 1990
- Beta blockade during and after myocardial infarction: An overview of the randomized trialsProgress in Cardiovascular Diseases, 1985
- Controversy in Counting and Attributing Events in Clinical TrialsThe New England Journal of Medicine, 1979
- On the psychology of prediction.Psychological Review, 1973