Calculation of Numbers-Needed-To-Treat in Parallel Group Trials Assessing Ordinal Outcomes: Case Examples from Acute Stroke and Stroke Prevention
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
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Cites
An Assessment of Clinically Useful Measures of the Consequences of Treatment
Laupacis, A., Sackett, D. L., & Roberts, R. S. (1988) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm198806303182605 · Cited by 1,681 · see citing works
Lansberg, M. G., Schrooten, M., Bluhmki, E., Thijs, V. N., & Saver, J. L. (2009) · Stroke · doi:10.1161/strokeaha.108.540708 · Cited by 220 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Statistical Analysis of the Primary Outcome in Acute Stroke Trials
Bath, P. M. W., Lees, K. R., Schellinger, P. D., Altman, H., Bland, M., Hogg, C., Howard, G., & Saver, J. L. (2012) · Stroke · doi:10.1161/strokeaha.111.641456 · Cited by 266 · see citing works
Self-citationChan, S. K. W., Chan, S. W. Y., Pang, H. H., Yan, K. K., Hui, C. L. M., Chang, W. C., Lee, E. H. M., & Chen, E. Y. H. (2018) · JAMA Psychiatry · doi:10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2018.0185 · Cited by 95 · see citing works
- Authors
- Bath, P., Hogg, C., Tracy, M., & Pocock, S.
- Affiliations
- University of Nottingham (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Bath, Philip
- Venue
- International Journal of Stroke
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- 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