Systematic reviews frequently encounter trials that report incomplete survival data – a log-rank p-value but no Hazard Ratio, or probabilities without a directly computed NNT. ParCC bridges these gaps with two tools in the HR Converter module.
An older trial (published 2005) reports:
The paper does not report a Hazard Ratio, which you need for your meta-analysis.
When only summary log-rank statistics are available, the Peto method estimates:
\[\ln(HR) = \pm \frac{\sqrt{\chi^2}}{\sqrt{E/4}}\]
with a 95% confidence interval:
\[\ln(HR) \pm \frac{1.96}{\sqrt{E/4}}\]
where \(E\) is the total number of events.
If the paper reports only “log-rank p = 0.009”:
A Pharmacy & Therapeutics committee asks: “How many patients must we treat with Drug X to prevent one additional death?” The trial reports:
\[NNT = \left\lceil \frac{1}{ARR} \right\rceil = \left\lceil \frac{1}{p_{control} - p_{intervention}} \right\rceil\]
Interpretation: For every 17 patients treated with Drug X for 12 months, one additional death is prevented.
ParCC supports four ways to compute NNT:
| Input Mode | You provide | ParCC calculates |
|---|---|---|
| Direct ARR | Absolute risk reduction | NNT = ceil(1/ARR) |
| Two Probabilities | Control & intervention probabilities | ARR, then NNT |
| RR + Baseline | Relative Risk + control probability | ARR = p0 x (1 - RR), then NNT |
| OR + Baseline | Odds Ratio + control probability | Converts to probabilities via Zhang & Yu, then NNT |
When the intervention increases risk (ARR < 0), the result is reported as NNH (Number Needed to Harm) with an orange warning. This happens when testing safety endpoints rather than efficacy.