1. Clinical relevance of an intervention assessed by a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials
- Author
-
Palazón-Bru A, Moscardo-Descalzo A, Morales-Gabriel S, Folgado-de la Rosa DM, Mares-García E, Carbonell-Torregrosa MLÁ, and Gil-Guillén VF
- Subjects
Clinical trials as topic ,Evidence-based medicine ,Number needed to treat ,Meta-analysis as topic ,Data interpretation ,Methods ,Statistical - Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Many meta-analyses usually omit the number needed to treat, or perform the calculation incorrectly, despite its importance in clinical decision-making. Accordingly, we will explain in an easily understandable way how to perform this procedure to assess the clinical relevance of the intervention. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: The expressions of the Cochrane Library and the concepts of clinical relevance and evidence-based medicine were applied. Simple cutoff points were also established to facilitate the task of interpreting results. The method was applied to two published meta-analyses to illustrate its application to real cases (treatment nonadherence). RESULTS: In the first example, with a risk in the control group ranging from 0.22 to 0.70, sending mobile phone messages to remind chronic patients to take their medication is clinically relevant with a high degree of evidence. For the second example (single-pill regimen in patients suffering from hypertension and/or dyslipidemia after 6 months), the range of the assumed control risk was between 0.28 and 0.57. CONCLUSION: The constructed algorithm could be applied to published meta-analyses or incorporated systematically in all meta-analyses with these characteristics.
- Published
- 2021