Number Needed To Treat and Relative Risk Reduction

Letters1 January 1998Number Needed To Treat and Relative Risk ReductionBimal P. Jain, MDBimal P. Jain, MDUnion Hospital; Lynn, MA 01904Author, Article, and Disclosure Informationhttps://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-128-1-199801010-00019 SectionsAboutFull TextPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissions ShareFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail TO THE EDITOR:If the purpose of systematic reviews is to encourage physicians to readily use new treatments in their own patients, I submit that the number needed to treat (NNT) [1] is not the correct method for reporting efficacy of treatments. From a clinical standpoint, NNT has the major shortcoming of representing efficacy only in the patients in whom the treatment is studied, because it depends on baseline risk. Therefore, it is not likely to represent efficacy in a physician's own patients, who will have different baseline risks. As a result, I do not think that physicians would readily ...References1. McQuay HJ, Moore RA. Using numerical results from systematic reviews in clinical practice. Ann Intern Med. 1997; 126:712-20. Google Scholar Author, Article, and Disclosure InformationAffiliations: Union Hospital; Lynn, MA 01904 PreviousarticleNextarticle Advertisement FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Metrics Cited byEducating Pharmacists on the Risks of Strong Opioids With Descriptive and Simulated Experience Risk Formats: A Randomized Controlled TrialExperiencing the risk of overutilising opioids among patients with chronic non-cancer pain in ambulatory care (ERONA): the protocol of an exploratory, randomised controlled trialWhen evidence says no: gynaecologists' reasons for (not) recommending ineffective ovarian cancer screeningWomen's perception, attitudes, and intended behavior towards predictive epigenetic risk testing for female cancers in 5 European countries: a cross-sectional online surveyUS gynecologists' estimates and beliefs regarding ovarian cancer screening's effectiveness 5 years after release of the PLCO evidenceWhat do European women know about their female cancer risks and cancer screening? A cross-sectional online intervention survey in five European countriesCan facts trump unconditional trust? Evidence-based information halves the influence of physicians' non-evidence-based cancer screening recommendationsAssessing risk: Decision-making under uncertaintyOvercoming the knowledge–behavior gap: The effect of evidence-based HPV vaccination leaflets on understanding, intention, and actual vaccination decisionDo Physicians Understand Cancer Screening Statistics? A National Survey of Primary Care Physicians in the United StatesOdette Wegwarth, PhD, Lisa M. Schwartz, MD, MS, Steven Woloshin, MD, MS, Wolfgang Gaissmaier, PhD, and Gerd Gigerenzer, PhDMeasuring and reporting the effect of an intervention: absolute measuresTransparency in Risk CommunicationApplication of Number Needed to Treat (NNT) as a Measure of Treatment Effect in Respiratory Medicine"Number needed to treat": A tool for summarizing treatment effect, and its application in anaesthesia and pain managementThe number needed to treat: a useful clinical measure or a case of the Emperor's new clothes? 1 January 1998Volume 128, Issue 1Page: 72KeywordsAbsolute risk reductionAcute myocardial infarctionClinical trial reportingNumber needed to treatRelative riskRisk managementSystematic reviews Issue Published: 1 January 1998 Copyright & PermissionsCopyright © 1998 by American College of Physicians. All Rights Reserved.PDF downloadLoading ...