Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jan 2, 2026

Author Spotlight: Assessing Surgical Frailty with Point-of-Care Ultrasound of Quadriceps Muscles
Published on: July 26, 2024
Fragility Index in Cardiovascular Randomized Controlled Trials
Muhammad Shahzeb Khan1, Rohan Kumar Ochani2, Asim Shaikh2
1Department of Internal Medicine, John H. Stroger Jr. Hospital of Cook County, Chicago, IL (M.S.K., N.Y.).
Insights
The fragility index (FI) assesses the robustness of cardiovascular randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Many trials show low FI, indicating results may not be robust, especially when patient follow-up is incomplete.
Area of Science:
- Clinical Trials
- Cardiovascular Medicine
- Biostatistics
Background:
- Traditional measures like P values and effect sizes are not always intuitive for clinicians.
- The fragility index (FI) offers a more interpretable metric for binary outcomes.
- FI quantifies the minimum patient number shift needed to negate a statistically significant finding.
Purpose of the Study:
- To evaluate the robustness of cardiovascular randomized controlled trials (RCTs) using the fragility index (FI).
- To assess the reliability of statistically significant primary outcomes in cardiovascular research.
Main Methods:
- Retrospective analysis of cardiovascular RCTs published between 2007-2017 in six high-impact journals.
- Inclusion criteria: sample size >500, factorial or dichotomous primary outcomes.
- Calculation of FI for each selected trial.
Main Results:
- Median FI was 13 among 123 included RCTs.
- 22.8% of trials had an FI of 1-4, and 30.1% had more patients lost to follow-up than their FI.
- Pharmaceutical interventions (median FI=19) and multiregional RCTs (median FI=22) showed higher FI.
- FI varied significantly by subspecialty (P=0.020).
Conclusions:
- Significant variation in FI exists across cardiovascular trials.
- Results emphasize the need for cautious interpretation of trial outcomes.
- Particular attention is warranted when the number of patients lost to follow-up surpasses the trial's FI.
Background:
Efficacy of an intervention is commonly evaluated using P values, in addition to effect size measures such as absolute risk reduction, relative risk reduction, and numbers needed to treat. However, these measures are not always intuitive to clinicians. The fragility index (FI) is a more intuitive number that can facilitate interpretation but can only be used with binary outcomes. FI is the minimum number of patients who must be moved from the nonevent group to the event group to turn a significant result nonsignificant. In this retrospective analysis, we assessed the robustness of cardiovascular randomized controlled trials (RCTs), which report a positive (statistically significant) primary outcome by using the FI.
Methods And Results:
We searched Medline from 2007 to 2017 to identify cardiovascular RCTs published in 6 high impact journals (The Lancet, New England Journal of Medicine, Journal of the American Medical Association, Circulation, Journal of the American College of Cardiology and European Heart Journal). Only RCTs with sample sizes >500 and a 2-by-2 factorial design or dichotomous primary outcomes were selected. FI was calculated using a defined approach. Among the cohort of 123 RCTs that met inclusion criteria, median FI was 13 (interquartile range, 5-26). In 28 trials (22.8%), FI ranged between 1 and 4. In 37 trials (30.1%), number of patients lost to follow-up was higher than the FI. Pharmaceutical interventions had higher FI compared with other interventions, FI=19 (7-52; P=0.002). Median FI varied according to subspecialty (electrophysiology=2; heart failure=11; interventional cardiology=8; P=0.020) and multiregional RCTs had higher FI=22 (12-53.25; P=0.023). FI did not differ based on risk of bias indicators, funding, or publication year.
Conclusions:
Considerable variations in FI were observed among cardiovascular trials, suggesting the need for careful interpretation of results, particularly when number of patients lost to follow-up exceeds FI.
Related Concept Videos
Types of Biopharmaceutical Studies: Controlled and Non-Controlled Approaches
Non-controlled studies, commonly employed for initial exploration, lack a control group, rendering them susceptible to biases and external influences. In contrast,...
Therapeutic Index
Relative Risk
Acute Coronary Syndrome III: Diagnostic Studies

