Heart failure & cardiomyopathies
Interpreting Population Mean Treatment Effects in the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire: A Patient-Level Meta-Analysis
Authors' conclusion
Inferences about clinical impacts based on population-level mean treatment effects may be misleading, since even small between-group differences may reflect clinically important treatment benefits for individual patients.
Study context
- Population
- Patients with HF in randomised clinical trials with patient-level Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) data
- Participants
- 9,977 patients11 RCTs
- Comparison
- Mean KCCQ-OSS treatment effects vs proportions of patients with clinically important improvement
- Outcome
- Proportion of patients improving ≥5 and ≥10 points in KCCQ score (0–100, higher = better)
Methodological detailsvalidation in 7 additional trials, Data analysed July 1–September 15, 2023
- Validation in 7 additional trials
- Data analysed July 1–September 15, 2023
Pooled result
As reported in the abstract
Association of mean KCCQ-OSS difference with absolute differences in clinically important changes
- Spearman correlations
- 0.76-0.92
- Mean KCCQ-OSS effect 2.5 points: absolute difference in proportion improving ≥5 points
- 6.0% (95% PI, 4.0%-8.1%)
- Mean KCCQ-OSS effect 2.5 points: absolute difference in proportion improving ≥10 points
- 5.0% (95% PI, 3.1%-7.0%)
- NNT, improvement ≥5 points
- 17 (95% PI, 12-25)
- NNT, improvement ≥10 points
- 20 (95% PI, 14-33)
Original publication
Interpreting Population Mean Treatment Effects in the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire: A Patient-Level Meta-Analysis. JAMA Cardiol. Published 1 January 2025. doi:10.
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →