Estimating the number needed to treat from continuous outcomes in randomised controlled trials: methodological challenges and worked example using data from the UK Back Pain Exercise and Manipulation (BEAM) trial

被引:40
作者
Froud, Robert [1 ]
Eldridge, Sandra [1 ]
Lall, Ranjit [2 ]
Underwood, Martin [2 ]
机构
[1] Barts & London Queen Marys Sch Med & Dent, Ctr Hlth Sci, London E1 2AT, England
[2] Warwick Med Sch, Warwick Clin Trials Unit, Coventry CV4 7AL, W Midlands, England
关键词
MORRIS DISABILITY QUESTIONNAIRE; CLINICALLY IMPORTANT DIFFERENCE; FUNCTIONAL STATUS; RESPONSIVENESS; NNT; METAANALYSIS; RELIABILITY; INTENSITY; BENEFITS; PACKAGE;
D O I
10.1186/1471-2288-9-35
中图分类号
R19 [保健组织与事业(卫生事业管理)];
学科分类号
100404 [儿少卫生与妇幼保健学];
摘要
Background: Reporting numbers needed to treat (NNT) improves interpretability of trial results. It is unusual that continuous outcomes are converted to numbers of individual responders to treatment (i.e., those who reach a particular threshold of change); and deteriorations prevented are only rarely considered. We consider how numbers needed to treat can be derived from continuous outcomes; illustrated with a worked example showing the methods and challenges. Methods: We used data from the UK BEAM trial (n = 1,334) of physical treatments for back pain; originally reported as showing, at best, small to moderate benefits. Participants were randomised to receive 'best care' in general practice, the comparator treatment, or one of three manual and/or exercise treatments: 'best care' plus manipulation, exercise, or manipulation followed by exercise. We used established consensus thresholds for improvement in Roland-Morris disability questionnaire scores at three and twelve months to derive NNTs for improvements and for benefits (improvements gained+deteriorations prevented). Results: At three months, NNT estimates ranged from 5.1 (95% CI 3.4 to 10.7) to 9.0 (5.0 to 45.5) for exercise, 5.0 (3.4 to 9.8) to 5.4 (3.8 to 9.9) for manipulation, and 3.3 (2.5 to 4.9) to 4.8 (3.5 to 7.8) for manipulation followed by exercise. Corresponding between-group mean differences in the Roland-Morris disability questionnaire were 1.6 (0.8 to 2.3), 1.4 (0.6 to 2.1), and 1.9 (1.2 to 2.6) points. Conclusion: In contrast to small mean differences originally reported, NNTs were small and could be attractive to clinicians, patients, and purchasers. NNTs can aid the interpretation of results of trials using continuous outcomes. Where possible, these should be reported alongside mean differences. Challenges remain in calculating NNTs for some continuous outcomes. Trial Registration: UK BEAM trial registration: ISRCTN32683578.
引用
收藏
页数:10
相关论文
共 44 条
[1]
[Anonymous], 2000, BACK BOOK
[2]
Calculating confidence intervals for the number needed to treat [J].
Bender, R .
CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIALS, 2001, 22 (02) :102-110
[3]
Responsiveness of functional status in low back pain: A comparison of different instruments [J].
Beurskens, AJHM ;
deVet, HCW ;
Koke, AJA .
PAIN, 1996, 65 (01) :71-76
[4]
Cohen J., 1988, Statistical power analysis for the behavioural sciences, V2nd
[6]
A comparison of five low back disability questionnaires: Reliability and responsiveness [J].
Davidson, M ;
Keating, JL .
PHYSICAL THERAPY, 2002, 82 (01) :8-24
[7]
Reproducibility and responsiveness of evaluative outcome measures - Theoretical considerations illustrated by an empirical example [J].
de Vet, HCW ;
Bouter, LM ;
Bezemer, PD ;
Beurskens, AJHM .
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT IN HEALTH CARE, 2001, 17 (04) :479-487
[8]
Minimal changes in health status questionnaires: distinction between minimally detectable change and minimally important change [J].
de Vet, Henrica C. ;
Terwee, Caroline B. ;
Ostelo, Raymond W. ;
Beckerman, Heleen ;
Knol, Dirk L. ;
Bouter, Lex M. .
HEALTH AND QUALITY OF LIFE OUTCOMES, 2006, 4 (1)
[9]
Minimally important change determined by a visual method integrating an anchor-based and a distribution-based approach [J].
de Vet, Henrica C. W. ;
Ostelo, Raymond W. J. G. ;
Terwee, Caroline B. ;
van der Roer, Nicole ;
Knol, Dirk L. ;
Beckerman, Heleen ;
Boers, Maarten ;
Bouter, Lex M. .
QUALITY OF LIFE RESEARCH, 2007, 16 (01) :131-142
[10]
When to use agreement versus reliability measures [J].
de Vet, Henrica C. W. ;
Terwee, Caroline B. ;
Knol, Dirk L. ;
Bouter, Lex M. .
JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2006, 59 (10) :1033-1039