The "number needed to treat" turns 20 -- and continues to be used and misused
- 9 September 2008
- journal article
- Published by CMA Impact Inc. in CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association Journal
- Vol. 179 (6) , 549-553
- https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.080484
Abstract
In the 20 years since the initial description of the number needed to treat,[1][1] this method of expressing the efficacy of an intervention has become widely used. Indeed, the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials statement recommends that the number needed to treat be reported in randomizedKeywords
This publication has 46 references indexed in Scilit:
- Competing risk and heterogeneity of treatment effect in clinical trialsTrials, 2008
- Does Random Treatment Assignment Cause Harm to Research Participants?PLoS Medicine, 2006
- Different Time Course for Prevention of Coronary and Stroke Events by Atorvastatin in the Anglo-Scandinavian Cardiac Outcomes Trial–Lipid-Lowering Arm (ASCOT-LLA)The American Journal of Cardiology, 2005
- Research issuesFamily Practice, 2005
- Systematic review to determine whether participation in a trial influences outcomeBMJ, 2005
- NNT for studies with long-term follow-upCMAJ : Canadian Medical Association Journal, 2005
- Influence of number needed to treat, costs and outcome on preferences for a preventive drugFamily Practice, 2004
- Number needed to treat (NNT): implication in rheumatology clinical practiceAnnals of the Rheumatic Diseases, 2003
- Individualizing Treatment DecisionsEvaluation & the Health Professions, 2002
- An Assessment of Clinically Useful Measures of the Consequences of TreatmentNew England Journal of Medicine, 1988