Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://hdl.handle.net/10316/108108
Title: Number needed to treat (NNT) in clinical literature: an appraisal
Authors: Mendes, Diogo 
Alves, Carlos 
Batel-Marques, Francisco 
Keywords: Numbers needed to treat; Evidence-based medicine; Epidemiologic methods; Data interpretation; Statistical; Meta-analysis; Randomized controlled trial; Cohort studies; Case–control studies
Issue Date: 1-Jun-2017
Publisher: Springer Nature
Serial title, monograph or event: BMC Medicine
Volume: 15
Issue: 1
Abstract: Background: The number needed to treat (NNT) is an absolute effect measure that has been used to assess beneficial and harmful effects of medical interventions. Several methods can be used to calculate NNTs, and they should be applied depending on the different study characteristics, such as the design and type of variable used to measure outcomes. Whether or not the most recommended methods have been applied to calculate NNTs in studies published in the medical literature is yet to be determined. The aim of this study is to assess whether the methods used to calculate NNTs in studies published in medical journals are in line with basic methodological recommendations. Methods: The top 25 high-impact factor journals in the “General and/or Internal Medicine” category were screened to identify studies assessing pharmacological interventions and reporting NNTs. Studies were categorized according to their design and the type of variables. NNTs were assessed for completeness (baseline risk, time horizon, and confidence intervals [CIs]). The methods used for calculating NNTs in selected studies were compared to basic methodological recommendations published in the literature. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Results: The search returned 138 citations, of which 51 were selected. Most were meta-analyses (n = 23, 45.1%), followed by clinical trials (n = 17, 33.3%), cohort (n = 9, 17.6%), and case–control studies (n = 2, 3.9%). Binary variables were more common (n = 41, 80.4%) than time-to-event (n = 10, 19.6%) outcomes. Twenty-six studies (51.0%) reported only NNT to benefit (NNTB), 14 (27.5%) reported both NNTB and NNT to harm (NNTH), and 11 (21.6%) reported only NNTH. Baseline risk (n = 37, 72.5%), time horizon (n = 38, 74.5%), and CI (n = 32, 62.7%) for NNTs were not always reported. Basic methodological recommendations to calculate NNTs were not followed in 15 studies (29.4%). The proportion of studies applying non-recommended methods was particularly high for meta-analyses (n = 13, 56.5%). Conclusions: A considerable proportion of studies, particularly meta-analyses, applied methods that are not in line with basic methodological recommendations. Despite their usefulness in assisting clinical decisions, NNTs are uninterpretable if incompletely reported, and they may be misleading if calculating methods are inadequate to study designs and variables under evaluation. Further research is needed to confirm the present findings.
URI: https://hdl.handle.net/10316/108108
ISSN: 1741-7015
DOI: 10.1186/s12916-017-0875-8
Rights: openAccess
Appears in Collections:FFUC- Artigos em Revistas Internacionais
I&D IBILI - Artigos em Revistas Internacionais

Files in This Item:
Show full item record

Page view(s)

42
checked on May 15, 2024

Download(s)

19
checked on May 15, 2024

Google ScholarTM

Check

Altmetric

Altmetric


This item is licensed under a Creative Commons License Creative Commons