Estimating the number needed to treat (NNT) index when the data are subject to error
- 5 March 2001
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Wiley in Statistics in Medicine
- Vol. 20 (6), 893-906
- https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.707
Abstract
The number needed to treat (NNT) index has been proposed as a clinically useful measure to assess the results of randomized trials and other clinical studies. In its usual form, NNT indicates the expected number of patients who must be treated with an experimental therapy in order to prevent one adverse event, compared to the expected event rates under the control therapy. It can be formulated as a function of the proportions of patients who respond to treatment by more than a certain amount, the clinically important difference. We may also wish to evaluate two group studies comparing treatment and control responses, and to consider net benefit from treatment (by also allowing for individuals who deteriorate as well as those who respond positively). In this paper, we investigate the effect on NNT caused by measurement errors in continuous outcome measures. Such errors can lead to bias in the estimated proportions of subjects with clinically important responses, and hence bias the associated values of NNT. General expressions for the bias are derived, and enumerated for typical scenarios. For many situations, reliability of 80 per cent or more in the observations is required to restrict the bias to tolerable levels. Copyright © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.This publication has 20 references indexed in Scilit:
- Assessing the minimal important difference in symptoms: A comparison of two techniquesJournal of Clinical Epidemiology, 1996
- ‘Unqualified Success’ and ‘Unmitigated Failure’ Number-Needed-to-Treat-Related Concepts for Assessing Treatment Efficacy in the Presence of Treatment-Induced Adverse EventsInternational Journal of Epidemiology, 1996
- The number needed to treat: a clinically useful nomogram in its proper contextBMJ, 1996
- Computer software that can calculate confidence intervals is now availableBMJ, 1995
- Understanding clinical trialsBMJ, 1994
- The “intervention index”: Insufficient informationJournal of Clinical Epidemiology, 1992
- Ischemic heart disease prevention: Estimating the impact of interventionsJournal of Clinical Epidemiology, 1992
- Measurement of health statusControlled Clinical Trials, 1989
- An Assessment of Clinically Useful Measures of the Consequences of TreatmentNew England Journal of Medicine, 1988
- Some effects of within-person variability in epidemiological studiesJournal of Chronic Diseases, 1973