MP71-09 COMPARISON OF FRAGILITY METRICS BETWEEN 2 COMMON PEDIATRIC UROLOGY BODIES OF LITERATURE

Abstract

You have accessJournal of UrologyPediatrics: Upper Urinary Tract Disorders and Fetal Urology (MP71)1 Apr 2020MP71-09 COMPARISON OF FRAGILITY METRICS BETWEEN 2 COMMON PEDIATRIC UROLOGY BODIES OF LITERATURE Mandy Rickard, Jessica Hannick*, Daniel T Keefe, Erik Drysdale, Lauren Erdman, Joana Dos Santos, and Armando J Lorenzo Mandy RickardMandy Rickard More articles by this author , Jessica Hannick*Jessica Hannick* More articles by this author , Daniel T KeefeDaniel T Keefe More articles by this author , Erik DrysdaleErik Drysdale More articles by this author , Lauren ErdmanLauren Erdman More articles by this author , Joana Dos SantosJoana Dos Santos More articles by this author , and Armando J LorenzoArmando J Lorenzo More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000000951.09AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: Fragility index (FI) is a metric recently introduced to provide an objective measure of strength of study results. One proposed reason for poor study robustness is sparse well designed randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Different topics in Pediatric Urology literature include studies with varying quality of design. In particular, bowel and bladder dysfunction (BBD) studies are more likely to be higher quality versus other topics. To assess this hypothesis, we compared measures of robustness (FI and fragility quotient [FQ]) in our BBD and hydronephrosis (HN) literature databases. METHODS: A direct comparison of FI and FQ data from previously analyzed BBD and HN literature was performed. We gathered study design data and contrasted FI and FQ data stratified by study design. Search strategy, inclusion and exclusion criteria, data extraction and analyses were identical in both groups. RESULTS: 125 BBD and 130 HN papers published between 1971 and 2019 were included. The mean h index was 16 +15, median citation count was 14 (0-252), FI was 3(0-116), and 34% of the studies were RCTs. Significantly more BBD studies (42%) were categorized as RCTs relative to HN studies 25% (p<0.01). Despite the higher proportion of RCTs in BBD papers, we noted no significant difference between FI (3 vs. 2; p=0.08) or citation counts (15 vs.14) for BBD and HN papers respectively (p=0.09) (Figure 1). CONCLUSIONS: Despite the higher number of RCTs in BBD literature, the overall robustness of findings remains similar and consistent with other Pediatric Urology topics. This finding suggests that study design alone is not a factor likely to address limitations in our literature. Source of Funding: NA © 2020 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 203Issue Supplement 4April 2020Page: e1067-e1067 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2020 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Mandy Rickard More articles by this author Jessica Hannick* More articles by this author Daniel T Keefe More articles by this author Erik Drysdale More articles by this author Lauren Erdman More articles by this author Joana Dos Santos More articles by this author Armando J Lorenzo More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...