Cited by 179Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsStatistical Methods in Clinical TrialsStatistical Methods in Epidemiology

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 28 of the 29 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

How to obtain nnt from cohen’s D: comparison of two methods

Open access

Abstract

BACKGROUND: In the literature we find many indices of size of treatment effect (effect size: ES). The preferred index of treatment effect in evidence-based medicine is the number needed to treat (NNT), while the most common one in the medical literature is Cohen's d when the outcome is continuous. There is confusion about how to convert Cohen's d into NNT. METHODS: We conducted meta-analyses of individual patient data from 10 randomized controlled trials of second generation antipsychotics for schizophrenia (n = 4278) to produce Cohen's d and NNTs for various definitions of response, using cutoffs of 10% through 90% reduction on the symptom severity scale. These actual NNTs were compared with NNTs calculated from Cohen's d according to two proposed methods in the literature (Kraemer, et al., Biological Psychiatry, 2006; Furukawa, Lancet, 1999). RESULTS: NNTs from Kraemer's method overlapped with the actual NNTs in 56%, while those based on Furukawa's method fell within the observed ranges of NNTs in 97% of the examined instances. For various definitions of response corresponding with 10% through 70% symptom reduction where we observed a non-small number of responders, the degree of agreement for the former method was at a chance level (ANOVA ICC of 0.12, p = 0.22) but that for the latter method was ANOVA ICC of 0.86 (95%CI: 0.55 to 0.95, p<0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Furukawa's method allows more accurate prediction of NNTs from Cohen's d. Kraemer's method gives a wrong impression that NNT is constant for a given d even when the event rate differs.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1371/journal.pone.0019070

Cites

28 of 28 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 29 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. 2008, Review Manager (RevMan). 5.0 ed

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 179

Metadata

Authors
Furukawa, T. A., & Leucht, S.
Affiliations
  • Kyoto University (JP)
  • TUM Klinikum (DE)
Corresponding author
Furukawa, Toshi A.
Venue
PLoS ONE
Published
2011-04-27
Volume
6
Issue
4
Pages
e19070
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2057672284
Cited by
179
References
29
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 18 · 2024: 23 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 20 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 25 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 3
FWCI
5.47
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Institutional Repositories DataBase (IRDB) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • mediaTUM – the media and publications repository of the Technical University Munich (Technical University Munich) (submittedVersion)
  • mediaTUM – the media and publications repository of the Technical University Munich (Technical University Munich) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Kyoto University Research Information Repository (Kyoto University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • American Psychiatric Publishing
  • Bristol-Myers Squibb
  • Eli Lilly and Company
  • Pfizer
  • AstraZeneca
  • GlaxoSmithKline
  • Sanofi
  • Astellas Pharma
  • Shionogi
  • H. Lundbeck A/S
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Epidemiology
Keywords
number needed to treat, Cohen's d, effect size, atypical antipsychotics, schizophrenia, symptom severity reduction, treatment response definition, interobserver agreement
MeSH terms
Humans, Schizophrenia, Antipsychotic Agents, Sample Size, Evidence-Based Medicine

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