Literature DB >> 19216053

Uncertainty in the minimum event risk to justify treatment was evaluated.

Stephen D Walter1, John C Sinclair.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To derive expressions for the standard errors (SEs) and coefficients of variation (CV) of the threshold number needed to treat (NNT(t)) and the minimum target event risk for treatment (MERT). STUDY DESIGN AND
SETTING: NNT(t) reflects the point at which the risks and costs of a clinical intervention balance the benefit. MERT defines the minimum target event risk at which the intervention is justified. Uncertainty in these measures has not previously been investigated.
RESULTS: SEs for NNT(t) and MERT were derived. The corresponding CVs are particularly useful, because they decompose the variability of NNT(t) and MERT into the uncertainty in their components (the values of target and adverse events, and the adverse event risk [AER]). The precision required for these components to formulate treatment recommendations is, thereby, highlighted. These ideas were illustrated with data concerning warfarin treatment for atrial fibrillation.
CONCLUSION: Our expressions for uncertainty in NNT(t) and MERT inform the confidence one has in initiating a clinical intervention. In our example, a recommendation for treatment could be made for groups of patients whose risk exceeded the range of uncertainty in MERT. However, for lower-risk patients, a recommendation for or against treatment could not be made, mainly because of the limited data on AERs. Our methods can also be used to estimate how much additional data would be required to provide a firmer recommendation for such patient groups.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19216053     DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2008.09.017

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol        ISSN: 0895-4356            Impact factor:   6.437


  4 in total

1.  Methodological issues in the design and analyses of neonatal research studies: Experience of the NICHD Neonatal Research Network.

Authors:  Abhik Das; Jon Tyson; Claudia Pedroza; Barbara Schmidt; Marie Gantz; Dennis Wallace; William E Truog; Rosemary D Higgins
Journal:  Semin Perinatol       Date:  2016-06-22       Impact factor: 3.300

Review 2.  A framework for organizing and selecting quantitative approaches for benefit-harm assessment.

Authors:  Milo A Puhan; Sonal Singh; Carlos O Weiss; Ravi Varadhan; Cynthia M Boyd
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2012-11-19       Impact factor: 4.615

3.  Risk threshold for starting low dose aspirin in pregnancy to prevent preeclampsia: an opportunity at a low cost.

Authors:  Emily Bartsch; Alison L Park; John C Kingdom; Joel G Ray
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-03-19       Impact factor: 3.240

4.  A generalised model for individualising a treatment recommendation based on group-level evidence from randomised clinical trials.

Authors:  Maura Marcucci; John C Sinclair
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2013-08-13       Impact factor: 2.692

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.