Premium
Reporting ‘number needed to treat’ in meta‐analyses: A cross‐sectional study
Author(s) -
Naing Cho,
Aung Kyan,
Mak Joon Wah
Publication year - 2012
Publication title -
journal of evidence‐based medicine
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.885
H-Index - 22
ISSN - 1756-5391
DOI - 10.1111/jebm.12002
Subject(s) - systematic review , checklist , medicine , meta analysis , medline , critical appraisal , randomized controlled trial , context (archaeology) , cochrane library , alternative medicine , psychology , surgery , pathology , paleontology , political science , law , cognitive psychology , biology
Aim: In translating clinical research into practice, the summarization of data from randomized trials in terms of measures of effect to be readily appreciated by the point‐of‐care clinicians is important. In this context, the body of literature highlighted the ‘number needed to treat’ as a useful measure. The objectives of our study were to assess how meta‐analyses described number needed to treat and corresponding 95% CI, and to explore issues related to reporting number needed to treat in the selected meta‐analyses. Method: For an illustration, we searched for the Cochrane systematic reviews and non‐Cochrane systematic reviews. Two‐stage selection was done to identify eligible studies. First, we fixed a date and then, we searched meta‐analyses in PUBMED available on the date fixed. Secondly, we purposively selected five Cochrane systematic reviews and three non‐Cochrane systematic reviews, according to our inclusion criteria. The critical appraisal of meta‐analyses identified for the current study was done with the 5‐item quality checklist introduced to the current analysis. Results: A total of 8 systematic reviews, 5 Cochrane systematic reviews and 3 non‐Cochrane systematic reviews/meta‐analyses, were identified for the present study. Of these 8 meta‐analyses, some (50%; 4/8) described number needed to treat in the method session of the study. However, the majority (87.5%; 7/8) reported number needed to treat in the results. For the details, 80% in Cochrane reviews and 66.5% in non‐Cochrane reviews reported number needed to treat in the results. Only two studies (25%; 2/8) reported susceptibility to publication bias, provided simplified interpretation or discussed number needed to treat. Conclusion: Although the Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions suggests the reviewers to include number needed to treat in reporting effect estimations, there still is a need to improve.