Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2025 Mar-Apr;24(2):e2452.
doi: 10.1002/pst.2452. Epub 2024 Nov 21.

Beyond the Fragility Index

Affiliations

Beyond the Fragility Index

Piero Quatto et al. Pharm Stat. 2025 Mar-Apr.

Abstract

The results of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) are frequently assessed with the fragility index (FI). Although the information provided by FI may supplement the p value, this indicator presents intrinsic weaknesses and shortcomings. In this article, we establish an analysis of fragility within a broader framework so that it can reliably complement the information provided by the p value. This perspective is named the analysis of strength. We first propose a new strength index (SI), which can be adopted in normal distribution settings. This measure can be obtained for both significance and nonsignificance and is straightforward to calculate, thus presenting compelling advantages over FI, starting from the presence of a threshold. The case of time-to-event outcomes is also addressed. Then, beyond the p value, we develop the analysis of strength using likelihood ratios from Royall's statistical evidence viewpoint. A new R package is provided for performing strength calculations, and a simulation study is conducted to explore the behavior of SI and the likelihood-based indicator empirically across different settings. The newly proposed analysis of strength is applied in the assessment of the results of three recent trials involving the treatment of COVID-19.

Keywords: fragility index; likelihood ratio; randomized clinical trial; strength index.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

    1. Feinstein A. R., “The Unit Fragility Index: An Additional Appraisal of “Statistical Significance” for a Contrast of Two Proportions,” Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 43, no. 2 (1990): 201–209. - PubMed
    1. Walsh M., Srinathan S. K., McAuley D. F., et al., “The Statistical Significance of Randomized Controlled Trial Results Is Frequently Fragile: A Case for a Fragility Index,” Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 67, no. 6 (2014): 622–628. - PubMed
    1. Docherty K. F., Campbell R. T., Jhund P. S., Petrie M. C., and McMurray J. J. V., “How Robust Are Clinical Trials in Heart Failure?,” European Heart Journal 38, no. 5 (2017): 338–345. - PubMed
    1. Baer B. R., Gaudino M., Charlson M., Fremes S. E., and Wells M. T., “Fragility Indices for Only Sufficiently Likely Modifications,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 118, no. 49 (2021): e2105254118. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Khan M. S., Fonarow G. C., Friede T., et al., “Application of the Reverse Fragility Index to Statistically Nonsignificant Randomized Clinical Trial Results,” JAMA Network Open 3, no. 8 (2020): e2012469. - PMC - PubMed

MeSH terms

LinkOut - more resources