BackgroundThe number needed to treat (NNT) is a well-known effect measure for reporting the results of clinical trials. In the case of time-to-event outcomes, the calculation of NNTs is more difficult than in the case of binary data. The frequency of using NNTs to report results of randomised controlled trials (RCT) investigating time-to-event outcomes and the adequacy of the applied calculation methods are unknown.MethodsWe searched in PubMed for RCTs with parallel group design and individual randomisation, published in four frequently cited journals between 2003 and 2005. We evaluated the type of outcome, the frequency of reporting NNTs with corresponding confidence intervals, and assessed the adequacy of the methods used to calculate NNTs in the case of time-to-event outcomes.ResultsThe search resulted in 734 eligible RCTs. Of these, 373 RCTs investigated time-to-event outcomes and 361 analyzed binary data. In total, 62 articles reported NNTs (34 articles with time-to-event outcomes, 28 articles with binary outcomes). Of the 34 articles reporting NNTs derived from time-to-event outcomes, only 17 applied an appropriate calculation method. Of the 62 articles reporting NNTs, only 21 articles presented corresponding confidence intervals.ConclusionThe NNT is used as effect measure to present the results from RCTs with binary and time-to-event outcomes in the current medical literature. In the case of time-to-event data incorrect methods were frequently applied. Confidence intervals for NNTs were given in one third of the NNT reporting articles only. In summary, there is much room for improvement in the application of NNTs to present results of RCTs, especially where the outcome is time to an event.

BackgroundTo assess the reporting of loss to follow-up (LTFU) information in articles on randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with time-to-event outcomes, and to assess whether discrepancies affect the validity of study results.MethodsLiterature survey of all issues of the BMJ, Lancet, JAMA, and New England Journal of Medicine published between 2003 and 2005. Eligible articles were reports of RCTs including at least one Kaplan-Meier plot. Articles were classified as "assessable" if sufficient information was available to assess LTFU. In these articles, LTFU information was derived from Kaplan-Meier plots, extracted from the text, and compared. Articles were then classified as "consistent" or "not consistent". Sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the validity of study results.Results319 eligible articles were identified. 187 (59%) were classified as "assessable", as they included sufficient information for evaluation; 140 of 319 (44%) presented consistent LTFU information between the Kaplan-Meier plot and text. 47 of 319 (15%) were classified as "not consistent". These 47 articles were included in sensitivity analyses. When various imputation methods were used, the results of a chi2-test applied to the corresponding 2 × 2 table changed and hence were not robust in about half of the studies.ConclusionsLess than half of the articles on RCTs using Kaplan-Meier plots provide assessable and consistent LTFU information, thus questioning the validity of the results and conclusions of many studies presenting survival analyses. Authors should improve the presentation of both Kaplan-Meier plots and LTFU information, and reviewers of study publications and journal editors should critically appraise the validity of the information provided.

Allogeneic stem cell transplant (allo-SCT) is considered a clinical option for patients with Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) who have experienced at least two chemosensitive relapses. The aim of this systematic review was to determine the benefits and harms of allo-SCT with an unrelated donor (UD) versus related donor (RD) allo-SCT for adult patients with HL. Alternative donor sources such as haploidentical donor cells (Haplo) and umbilical cord blood (UCB) were also included. The available evidence was limited. Ten studies were included in this assessment. Four studies provided sufficient data to compare UD with RD allo-SCT. None of these studies was a randomized controlled trial. Additionally, three non-comparative studies, such as registry analyses, which considered patients with UD transplants were included. The risk of bias in the studies was high. Results on overall and progression-free survival (PFS) showed no consistent tendency in favor of a donor type. Results on therapy-associated mortality and acute (grade II-IV) and chronic graft-versus-host disease were also inconsistent. The study comparing UCB with RD transplants and two non-comparative studies with UCB transplants showed similar results. One of the studies comparing additionally Haplo with RD transplants indicated a benefit in PFS for the Haplo transplant group. In summary, our findings do not indicate a substantial outcome disadvantage of UD and alternative donor sources versus RD allo-SCT for adult patients with advanced HL.