Format

Send to:

Choose Destination
See comment in PubMed Commons below
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2002;2:1. Epub 2002 Jan 25.

Simpson's paradox and calculation of number needed to treat from meta-analysis.

Author information

  • 1Manor View Surgery, Bushey Health Centre, London Road, Bushey, Watford, UK. chriscates@email.msn.com

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

Calculation of numbers needed to treat (NNT) is more complex from meta-analysis than from single trials. Treating the data as if it all came from one trial may lead to misleading results when the trial arms are imbalanced.

DISCUSSION:

An example is shown from a published Cochrane review in which the benefit of nursing intervention for smoking cessation is shown by formal meta-analysis of the individual trial results. However if these patients were added together as if they all came from one trial the direction of the effect appears to be reversed (due to Simpson's paradox). Whilst NNT from meta-analysis can be calculated from pooled Risk Differences, this is unlikely to be a stable method unless the event rates in the control groups are very similar. Since in practice event rates vary considerably, the use a relative measure, such as Odds Ratio or Relative Risk is advocated. These can be applied to different levels of baseline risk to generate a risk specific NNT for the treatment.

SUMMARY:

The method used to calculate NNT from meta-analysis should be clearly stated, and adding the patients from separate trials as if they all came from one trial should be avoided.

PMID:
11860604
[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
PMCID:
PMC65632
Free PMC Article
PubMed Commons home

PubMed Commons

0 comments
How to join PubMed Commons

    Supplemental Content

    Full text links

    Icon for BioMed Central Icon for PubMed Central
    Loading ...
    Write to the Help Desk