Literature DB >> 12038920

Reporting number needed to treat and absolute risk reduction in randomized controlled trials.

Jim Nuovo1, Joy Melnikow, Denise Chang.   

Abstract

CONTEXT: Ongoing efforts to improve the quality of reporting for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) include the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement. We examined the frequency of explicit reporting of the number needed to treat (NNT) and the absolute risk reduction (ARR) in RCTs.
METHODS: Five frequently cited journals were investigated: Annals of Internal Medicine, BMJ, JAMA, The Lancet, and the New England Journal of Medicine. For each journal, 4 years were evaluated: 1989, 1992, 1995, and 1998. All issues of each journal for each year were reviewed manually. Eligible articles were those in which an RCT was conducted on the use of a medication showing a significant treatment effect. Elements abstracted from each eligible article were the condition investigated, event being treated or prevented, intervention, study results, and reporting methods (relative risk reduction, NNT, and ARR).
RESULTS: Of 359 eligible articles, NNT was reported in 8 articles. Six of the 8 studies were from 1998. Absolute risk reduction was reported in 18 articles, 10 of which were from 1998.
CONCLUSIONS: Despite CONSORT recommendations, few authors expressed their findings in terms of NNT or ARR. Consideration should be given to including these values in reports of RCTs.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2002        PMID: 12038920     DOI: 10.1001/jama.287.21.2813

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  JAMA        ISSN: 0098-7484            Impact factor:   56.272


  49 in total

1.  Number needed to treat (or harm).

Authors:  Martin R Tramèr; Bernhard Walder
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2005-05       Impact factor: 3.352

2.  The exaggerated relations between diet, body weight and mortality: the case for a categorical data approach.

Authors:  H Gilbert Welch; Lisa M Schwartz; Steven Woloshin
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2005-03-29       Impact factor: 8.262

Review 3.  Rethinking health numeracy: a multidisciplinary literature review.

Authors:  Jessica S Ancker; David Kaufman
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  2007-08-21       Impact factor: 4.497

4.  Methods and Biostatistics: a concise guide for peer reviewers.

Authors:  A Kyrgidis; S Triaridis
Journal:  Hippokratia       Date:  2010-12       Impact factor: 0.471

5.  Endpoint selection and relative (versus absolute) risk reporting in published medication trials.

Authors:  Michael Hochman; Danny McCormick
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2011-08-13       Impact factor: 5.128

6.  Outcomes, outcomes, every where, nor any stop to think?

Authors:  Colin P West
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2011-11       Impact factor: 5.128

7.  Absolute Effect of Prostate Cancer Screening: Balance of Benefits and Harms by Center within the European Randomized Study of Prostate Cancer Screening.

Authors:  Anssi Auvinen; Sue M Moss; Teuvo L J Tammela; Kimmo Taari; Monique J Roobol; Fritz H Schröder; Chris H Bangma; Sigrid Carlsson; Gunnar Aus; Marco Zappa; Donella Puliti; Louis J Denis; Vera Nelen; Maciej Kwiatkowski; Marco Randazzo; Alvaro Paez; Marcos Lujan; Jonas Hugosson
Journal:  Clin Cancer Res       Date:  2015-08-19       Impact factor: 12.531

8.  CONSORT 2010 Statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials.

Authors:  Kenneth F Schulz; Douglas G Altman; David Moher
Journal:  BMC Med       Date:  2010-03-24       Impact factor: 8.775

9.  A tool to balance benefit and harm when deciding about adjuvant therapy.

Authors:  A M Knops; A Goossens; M P M Burger; L J A Stalpers; D T Ubbink
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2009-03-24       Impact factor: 7.640

10.  Application of evidence-based urology in improving quality of care.

Authors:  Arabind Panda; L N Dorairajan; Santosh Kumar
Journal:  Indian J Urol       Date:  2007-04
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.