Objective     To evaluate the robustness of cardiovascular meta-analysis with use of fragility index. Methods     By searching PubMed, EMbase, and Web of Science databases from 2018 to 2022, relevant literature on cardiovascular meta-analysis was systematically collected and the fragility indexes were calculated; Spearman correlation analysis was used to explore the relationship between fragility index and sample size, total number of events, effect size and its confidence interval width. Results     A total of 212 meta-analyses from 29 articles were included, with a median fragility index of 11 (5, 25), a median sample size of 10 301 (3 384, 48 330), and a median total number of events of 360 (129, 1 309). Most meta-analyses chose relative risk as the effect measure (179/212), and chose Mantel-Haenszel method (102/212) and random effects model (153/212). The fragility index was positively correlated with the sample size (rs=0.56, P<0.05) and the total number of events (rs=0.61, P<0.05), and negatively correlated with confidence interval width of the effect size (rs=−0.52, P<0.05). No statistically significant results were obtained in the correlation between the fragility index and effect size. Conclusion     The fragility indexes of cardiovascular meta-analyses published in comprehensive journals of high impact factors and professional cardiovascular journals are generally low, and therefore lack robustness. Fragility index is suggested to be reported in medical researches, assisting in explaining the P-value.

Objective To evaluate the reporting quality and influencing factors of patient-reported outcome (PRO) data in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of lung cancer. Methods RCTs of lung cancer with PRO as either primary or secondary endpoints were searched from PubMed, EMbase, Medline, CNKI, Wanfang Data, and VIP databases between January 1, 2010 and April 20, 2024. Reporting quality of included RCTs were assessed based on the CONSORT-PRO extension. Descriptive statistics and bivariate regression analysis were used to describe the reporting quality and analyze the factors influencing the reporting quality. Results A total of 740 articles were retrieved. After screening, 53 eligible RCTs of lung cancer with 22 780 patients were included. The patients were mainly with non-small cell lung cancer (84.91%), with the median sample size of the included studies was 364.0 (160.5, 599.5) patients. The primary PRO tool used was the EORTC QLQ-C30 (60.38%). There were 52 (98.11%) studies whose PRO measured the domain of "symptom management of cough, dyspnea, fatigue, pain, etc.", and 45 (84.91%) studies measured "health-related quality of life". Multicenter studies accounted for 84.91%, and randomized non-blind trials accounted for 62.26%. PRO was used as the primary endpoint in 33.96% of the studies and as secondary endpoints in 66.04%. The reliability and validity of the PRO tools were explicitly mentioned in 11.32% and 7.55% of the studies, respectively. The average completeness of reporting according to the CONSORT-PRO guidelines was 60.00%, ranging from 25.00% to 93.00%. The main factors affecting the completeness of CONSORT-PRO reporting included sample size and publication year. For every increment in sample size, the completeness of reporting increased by 27.5% (SE=0.00, t=2.040, P=0.046). Additionally, studies published after 2018 had a 67.2% higher completeness of reporting compared to those published in or before 2018 (SE=17.8, t=–3.273, P=0.006). Conclusion The study reveals that the overall reporting quality of PRO in lung cancer RCTs is poor. Particularly, the reporting of PRO measures reliability and validity, PRO assumptions, applicability, and handling of missing data need further improvement. Future research should emphasize comprehensive adherence to the CONSORT-PRO guidelines.