Illustrating risk difference and number needed to treat from a randomized controlled trial of spinal manipulation for cervicogenic headache

Mitchell Haas, Michael Schneider, Darcy Vavrek, Mitchell Haas, Michael Schneider, Darcy Vavrek

Abstract

Background: The number needed to treat (NNT) for one participant to benefit is considered a useful, clinically meaningful way of reporting binary outcomes from randomized trials. Analysis of continuous data from our randomized controlled trial has previously demonstrated a significant and clinically important difference favoring spinal manipulation over a light massage control.

Methods: Eighty participants were randomized to receive spinal manipulation or a light massage control (n = 40/group). Improvements in cervicogenic headache pain (primary outcome), disability, and number in prior four weeks were dichotomized into binary outcomes at two thresholds: 30% representing minimal clinically important change and 50% representing clinical success. Groups were compared at 12 and 24-week follow-up using binomial regression (generalized linear models) to compute the adjusted risk difference (RD) between groups and number needed to treat (NNT) after adjusting for baseline differences between groups. Results were compared to logistic regression results.

Results: For headache pain, clinically important improvement (30% or 50%) was more likely for spinal manipulation: adjusted RD = 17% to 27% and NNT = 3.8 to 5.8 (p = .005 to .028). Some statistically significant results favoring manipulation were found for headache disability and number.

Conclusion: Spinal manipulation demonstrated a benefit in terms of a clinically important improvement of cervicogenic headache pain. The use of adjusted NNT is recommended; however, adjusted RD may be easier to interpret than NNT. The study demonstrated how results may depend on the threshold for dichotomizing variables into binary outcomes.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NLM identifier NCT00246350.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Study flowchart.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Improvement from spinal manipulation. The figures show the percentage of spinal manipulation patients that achieved increasing levels of improvement in cervicogenic headache (CGH) pain, number, and disability at the 12-week and 24-week follow-ups. Control group data are not included.

References

    1. Bender R. Calculating confidence intervals for the number needed to treat 12. Control Clin Trials. 2001;22:102–10. doi: 10.1016/S0197-2456(00)00134-3.
    1. Bolton JE. Sensitivity and specificity of outcome measures in patients with neck pain: detecting clinically significant improvement. Spine. 2004;29:2410–7. doi: 10.1097/01.brs.0000143080.74061.25.
    1. Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D. CONSORT 2010 Statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials 7. BMC Med. 2010;8:18. doi: 10.1186/1741-7015-8-18.
    1. Nuovo J, Melnikow J, Chang D. Reporting number needed to treat and absolute risk reduction in randomized controlled trials. JAMA. 2002;287:2813–4. doi: 10.1001/jama.287.21.2813.
    1. Jaeschke R, Guyatt G, Shannon H, Walter S, Cook D, Heddle N. Basic statistics for clinicians: 3. Assessing the effects of treatment: measures of association. Can Med Assoc J. 1995;152:351–7.
    1. Guyatt G, Rennie D. Users' guides to the medical literature: a manual for evidence-based clinical practice. Chicago: American Medical Association; 2002.
    1. Gordis L. Epidemiology. 2. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company; 2002.
    1. Ostelo RW, Deyo RA, Stratford P, Waddell G, Croft P, Von KM, Bouter LM, de Vet HC. Interpreting change scores for pain and functional status in low back pain: towards international consensus regarding minimal important change. Spine. 2008;33:90–4. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e31815e3a10.
    1. Froud R, Eldridge S, Lall R, Underwood M. Estimating the number needed to treat from continuous outcomes in randomised controlled trials: methodological challenges and worked example using data from the UK Back Pain Exercise and Manipulation (BEAM) trial. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2009;9:35. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-9-35.
    1. Fritz JM, Hebert J, Koppenhaver S, Parent E. Beyond minimally important change: defining a successful outcome of physical therapy for patients with low back pain. Spine. 2009;34:2803–9. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181ae2bd4.
    1. Haas M, Spegman A, Peterson DH, Aickin M, Vavrek D. Dose-response and efficacy of spinal manipulation for chronic cervicogenic headache: a pilot randomized controlled trial. Spine J. 2010;10:117–28. doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2009.09.002. PMCID: PMC2819630.
    1. Haas M, Aickin M, Vavrek D. A path analysis of expectancy and patient-provider encounter in an open-label randomized controlled trial of spinal manipulation for cervicogenic headache. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2010;33:5–13. doi: 10.1016/j.jmpt.2009.11.007. PMCID: PMC2828362.
    1. Vavrek D, Haas M, Peterson D. Physical exam and pain outcomes in a chronic headache study: what can we learn for outcome measures in the future? J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2010. in press .
    1. International Headache Society. Classification and diagnostic criteria for headache disorders, cranial neuralgias, and facial pain. Cephalalgia. 1988;8(suppl 7):1–96.
    1. Gatterman MI, Panzer DM. In: Chiropractic management of spine related disorders. Gatterman MI, editor. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins; 1990. Disorders of the cervical spine; pp. 205–55.
    1. Vernon H. Spinal manipulation and headaches: an update. Topics in Clinical Chiropractic. 1995;2:34–47.
    1. Souza TA. Differential diagnosis for the chiropractor: protocols and algorithms. Gaithersburg, MD: Aspen Publishers, Inc; 1998. pp. 383–402.
    1. Peterson DH, Bergmann TF. Chiropractic technique: principles and practice. 2. St. Louis: Mosby; 2002.
    1. Cooperstein R, Killinger L. In: Chiropractic care of the older patient. Gleberzon BJ, editor. Boston: Butterworth-Heinemann; 2001. Chiropractic techniques in the care of the geriatric patient; pp. 359–83.
    1. Bergmann TF, Larson L. Manipulative care and older persons. Topics in Clinical Chiropractic. 1996;3:56–65.
    1. McDowell BL. In: Chiropractic management of spine related disorders. Gatterman MI, editor. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins; 1990. Adjunctive procedures: physiological therapeutics; pp. 330–78.
    1. Nicholson GG, Clendaniel RA. In: Physical Therapy. Scully RM, Barnes MR, editor. Philadelphia J.B. Lippincott Company; 1989. Manual Techniques; pp. 926–85.
    1. Peterson DH, Bergmann TF. Chiropractic technique: principles and practice. 2. St. Louis: Mosby; 2002.
    1. Nilsson N, Christensen HW, Hartvigsen J. The effect of spinal manipulation in the treatment of cervicogenic headache. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 1997;20:326–30.
    1. Furlan AD, Brosseau L, Imamura M, Irvin E. Massage for low back pain: a systematic review within the framework of the Cochrane collaboration back review group. Spine. 2002;27:1896–910. doi: 10.1097/00007632-200209010-00017.
    1. Cherkin DC, Deyo RA, Sherman KJ, Hart G, Street JH, Hrbek A, Davis RB, Cramer E, Milliman B, Booker J, Mootz R, Barassi J, Kabin JR, Kuptchuk TJ, Eisenberg DM. Characteristics of licensed acupuncturists, chiropractors, massage thrapists and naturapthic physicians. J Am Board Fam Pract. 2002;15:463–72.
    1. Underwood MR, Barnett AG, Vickers MR. Evaluation of two time-specific back pain outcome measures. Spine. 1999;24:1104–12. doi: 10.1097/00007632-199906010-00010.
    1. User's manual: low back pain TyPE specification. Version 1. Bloomington, MN: Quality Quest; 1989.
    1. StataCorp. Stata statistical software: release 11. College Station, TX: Stata Corporation; 2009.
    1. McCullagh P, Nelder JS. Generalized Linear Models. 2. New York: Chapman & Hall; 1969.
    1. Cheung YB. A modified least-squares regression approach to the estimation of risk difference. Am J Epidemiol. 2007;166:1337–44. doi: 10.1093/aje/kwm223.
    1. Lumley T, Diehr P, Emerson S, Chen L. The importance of the normality assumption in large public health data sets. Annu Rev Public Health. 2002;23:151–69. doi: 10.1146/annurev.publhealth.23.100901.140546.
    1. Sackett DL, Straus SE, Richardson WS, Rosenberg W, Haynes RB. Evidence-based medicine: How to practice and teach evidence-based medicine. 2. Edinburgh: Churchill-Livingstone; 2000.

Source: PubMed

Sponzoři a spolupracovníci

Zdravotní podmínky

Drogové intervence

3
Předplatit