Cited by 24Statistical Methods in Clinical TrialsMeta-analysis and systematic reviewsStatistical Methods in Epidemiology

Calculation of Numbers-Needed-To-Treat in Parallel Group Trials Assessing Ordinal Outcomes: Case Examples from Acute Stroke and Stroke Prevention

Bath, Philip, Hogg, Cheryl, Tracy, Michael, Pocock, Stuart·2011·International Journal of Stroke

Abstract

Background: Number-needed-to-treat describes the magnitude of the effect of an intervention, underpins health economic analyses, and is typically calculated for binary events. Ordered categorical outcomes provide more clinical information and their analysis using ordinal approaches is usually more efficient statistically. However, to date, techniques to calculate number-needed-to-treat based on ordinal outcomes for parallel group trials have had important limitations. Aims: Numbers-needed-to-treat may be calculated for ordinal data from parallel group trials by using an unmatched comparison of all subjects or by generating matched pairs of patients nested within the study. Methods: The above approaches were assessed and compared with numbers-needed-to-treat calculated for binary outcomes using individual patient data from acute and prevention stroke trials testing the effect of interventions of varying utility and efficacy. Results: Numbers-needed-to-treat were generally lower numerically for ordinal vs. binary, and matched vs. unmatched analyses, and the lowest in highly efficacious interventions: hemicraniectomy, ordinal matched 2·4 vs. ordinal unmatched 2·5 vs. binary matched 12 vs. binary unmatched 9 (one trial, 12 month outcome); alteplase, 4·5 vs. 6·6 vs. 8·4 vs. 8·4 (one trial with two parts, three-months); aspirin, 42 vs. 58 vs. 76 vs. 80 (one trial, six-months); and stroke units, 3·6–5·3 vs. 6·2 vs. 4·7–5·9 vs. 6·3–7·0 (two trials, three- to 60 months). Similar trends were seen for aspirin/dipyridamole vs. aspirin in secondary prevention, 22 vs. 20 vs. 31 vs. 31 (one trial, 24 months). Conclusions: Number-needed-to-treat may be calculated for ordinal outcome data derived from parallel group stroke trials; such numbers-needed-to-treat are lower than those calculated for binary outcomes. Their use complements the use of ordinal statistical approaches in the analysis of ordered categorical data.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1747-4949.2011.00614.x

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bath, P., Hogg, C., Tracy, M., & Pocock, S.
Affiliations
University of Nottingham (GB)
Corresponding author
Bath, Philip
Venue
International Journal of Stroke
Published
2011-06-06
Volume
6
Issue
6
Pages
472-479
ISSN
  • 1747-4930 (ISSN-L)
  • 1747-4949
OpenAlex
W2141586063
Cited by
24
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 2 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 4
FWCI
2.79
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • International Journal of Stroke (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Epidemiology
Keywords
number needed to treat, ordinal outcomes, acute stroke, stroke prevention, individual patient data, hemicraniectomy, alteplase, aspirin, stroke unit, secondary stroke prevention, intervention efficacy
MeSH terms
Aspirin, Dipyridamole Drug Combination, Aged, Algorithms, Aspirin, Clinical Trials as Topic, Dipyridamole, Drug Combinations, Female, Fibrinolytic Agents, Humans, Male, Tissue Plasminogen Activator, Platelet Aggregation Inhibitors, Research Design, Confidence Intervals, Treatment Outcome, Sample Size, Stroke

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review