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
Froud, Robert J., Eldridge, S., Lall, Ranjit (Statistician) and Underwood, M. (Martin) M.D.. (2009) 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. BMC Medical Research Methodology, Vol.9 . Article:35. ISSN 1471-2288
WRAP_Underwood_estimating_number.pdf - Requires a PDF viewer such as GSview, Xpdf or Adobe Acrobat Reader
Official URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-9-35
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.
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).
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.
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.
|Item Type:||Journal Article|
|Subjects:||R Medicine > RC Internal medicine|
|Divisions:||Faculty of Medicine > Warwick Medical School > Health Sciences
Faculty of Medicine > Warwick Medical School
|Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH):||Backache -- Exercise therapy -- Great Britain, Backache -- Physical therapy, Backache -- Treatment -- Evaluation, Medical care -- Research -- Great Britain|
|Journal or Publication Title:||BMC Medical Research Methodology|
|Publisher:||BioMed Central Ltd.|
|Official Date:||11 June 2009|
|Access rights to Published version:||Open Access|
|Funder:||Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry (BLSMD)|
Rose G: Individuals and populations. In The strategy of preventive medicine. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press; 1992:12,53-63,74.
Kirsch I, Deacon BJ, Huedo-Medina TB, Scoboria A, Moore TJ, Johnson BT: Initial severity and antidepressant benefits: a meta-analysis of data submitted to the Food and Drug Administration.
PLoS Med 2008, 5(2):e45.
Turner EH, Matthews AM, Linardatos E, Tell RA, Rosenthal R: Selective publication of antidepressant trials and its influence on apparent efficacy.
N Engl J Med 2008, 358(3):252-60.
Turner EH, Rosenthal R: Efficacy of antidepressants.
BMJ 2008, 336(7643):516-7.
Cohen J: Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. second edition. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1988.
Norman GR, Sridhar FG, Guyatt GH, Walter SD: Relation of distribution- and anchor-based approaches in interpretation of changes in health-related quality of life.
Med Care 2001, 39(10):1039-47.
Guyatt GH, Juniper EF, Walter SD, Grifith LE, Goldstein RS: Interpreting treatment effects in randomised trials.
BMJ 1998, 316(7132):690-3.
Covey J: A meta-analysis of the effects of presenting treatment benefits in different formats.
Medical Decision Making 2007, 27(5):638-654.
United Kingdom back pain exercise and manipulation (UK BEAM) randomised trial: Effectiveness of physical treatments for back pain in primary care
BMJ 2004, 329(7479):1377-1381.
Roland M, Morris R: A study of the natural history of back pain. Part I: development of a reliable and sensitive measure of disability in low-back pain.
Spine 1983, 8(2):141-4.
Tveito TH, Eriksen HR: United Kingdom back pain exercise and manipulation (UK BEAM) trial: Is manipulation the most cost effective addition to "best care"?
BMJ 2005, 330(7492):674.
UK Back pain Exercise and Manipulation (UK BEAM) trial a national randomised trial of physical treatments for back pain in primary care: objectives, design and interventions
BMC Health services research 2003, 3(1):16.
Roland M, Waddel G, Klaber-Moffett J, Burton AK, Main C: The back book. Norwich: The stationary office; 1996.
Underwood M, O'Meara S, Harvey E: The acceptability to primary care staff of a multidisciplinary training package on acute back pain guidelines.
Fam Pract 2002, 19(5):511-5.
Moffett JK, Frost H: Back to Fitness Programme.
Physiotherapy 2000, 86:295-305.
Harvey E, Burton AK, Moffett JK, Breen A: Spinal manipulation for low-back pain: a treatment package agreed to by the UK chiropractic, osteopathy and physiotherapy professional associations.
Man Ther 2003, 8:46-51.
Beurskens A, de Vet H, Koke A: Responsiveness of functional status in low back pain: a comparison of different instruments.
Pain 1996, 65:71-76.
de Vet HC, Terwee CB, Ostelo RW, Beckerman H, Knol DL, Bouter LM: Minimal changes in health status questionnaires: distinction between minimally detectable change and minimally important change.
Health Qual Life Outcomes 2006, 4:54.
de Vet HC, Bouter LM, Bezemer PD, Beurskens AJ: Reproducibility and responsiveness of evaluative outcome measures.
Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2001, 17(4):479-487.
Stratford PW: Using the Roland-Morris questionnaire to make decisions about patients.
Physiotherapy Canada 1996, 48:107-110.
Guyatt G, Montori V, Devereaux PJ, Schunemann H, Bhandari M: Patients at the center: in our practice, and in our use of language.
ACP J Club 2004, 140:A11-2.
Jordan K, Dunn KM, Lewis M, Croft P: A minimal clinically important difference was derived for the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire for low back pain.
J Clin Epidemiol 2006, 59:45-52.
Kovacs FM, Abraira V, Royuela A, Corcoll J, Alegre L, Cano A, Muriel A, Zamora J, del Real MT, Gestoso M, Mufraggi N: Minimal clinically important change for pain intensity and disability in patients with nonspecific low back pain.
Spine 2007, 32(25):2915-20.
Ostelo RW, de Vet HC, Knol DL, Brandt PA: 24-item Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire was preferred out of six functional status questionnaires for post-lumbar disc surgery.
J Clin Epidemiol 2004, 57(3):268-76.
Lauridsen HH, Hartvigsen J, Manniche C, Korsholm L, Grunnet-Nilsson N: Responsiveness and minimal clinically important difference for pain and disability instruments in low back pain patients.
BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2006, 7:82.
Stratford PW: Sensitivity to Change of the Roland-Morris Back Pain Questionnaire: Part 1.
Phys Ther 1998, 78(11):1186-96.
Stratford PW: Sensitivity to Change of the Roland-Morris Back Pain Questionnaire: Part 2.
Phys Ther 1998, 78(11):1197-207.
Ostelo RWJG, Deyo RA, Stratford P, Waddell G, Croft PP, Von Korff M, Bouter LM, de Vet HC: Interpreting Change Scores for Pain and Functional Status in Low Back Pain: Towards International Consensus Regarding Minimal Important Change.
Spine 2008, 33:90-94.
Roer N, Ostelo RW, Bekkering GE, van Tulder MW, de Vet HC: Minimal clinically important change for pain intensity, functional status, and general health status in patients with nonspecific low back pain.
Spine 2006, 31(5):578-82.
Lauridsen HH, Hartvigsen J, Korsholm L, Grunnet-Nilsson N, Manniche C: Choice of external criteria in back pain research: Does it matter? Recommendations based on analysis of responsiveness.
Pain 2007, 131(1–2):112-20.
Farrar JT, Young JJP, LaMoreaux L, Werth JL, Poole RM: Clinical importance of changes in chronic pain intensity measured on an 11-point numerical pain rating scale.
Pain 2001, 94(2):149-58.
de Vet HC, Terwee C, Knol DL, Bouter L: When to use agreement versus reliability measures.
J Clin Epidemiol 2006, 59:1033-1039.
Guyatt GH, Norman GR, Juniper EF, Grifith LE: A critical look at transition ratings.
J Clin Epidemiol 2002, 55(9):900-8.
Bender R: Calculating Confidence Intervals for the Number Needed to Treat.
Controlled Clinical Trials 2001, 22:102-110.
Walter SD, Irwig L: Estimating the number needed to treat (NNT) index when the data are subject to error.
Stat Med 2001, 20(6):893-906.
de Vet H, Ostelo R, Terwee C, Roer N, Knol D, Beckerman H, Boers M, Bouter L: Minimally important change determined by a visual method integrating an anchor-based and a distribution-based approach.
Quality of life research 2007, 16:131-142.
Davidson M, Keating J: A comparison of five low back disability questionnaires: Reliability and responsiveness.
Physical therapy 2002, 82:8-24.
Marschner IC, Emberson J, Irwig L, Walter SD: The number needed to treat (NNT) can be adjusted for bias when the outcome is measured with error.
J Clin Epidemiol 2004, 57(12):1244-1252.
Walter S: Number needed to treat (NNT): estimation of clinical benefit.
Stat Med 2001, 20(24):3947-3962.
Senn S: N of 1 trials are needed.
BMJ 1998, (317):7157.
Wu LA, Kottke TE: Number needed to treat: caveat emptor.
J Clin Epidemiol 2001, 54(2):111-6.
Gorouhi F, Jafarian S, Firooz A: Reporting of number needed to treat and its difficulties.
Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology 2007, 57(4):729-730.
Norman GR, Stratford P, Regehr G: Methodological problems in the retrospective computation of responsiveness to change: the lesson of Cronbach.
J Clin Epidemiol 1997, 50(8):869-79.
Guidance for Industry. Patient-Reported Outcome Measures: Use in Medical Product Development to Support Labeling Claims
Health Qual Life Outcomes 2006, 4:79.
Actions (login required)
Downloads per month over past year