Format

Send to

Choose Destination
See comment in PubMed Commons below
J Clin Epidemiol. 2010 Aug;63(8):820-5. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.08.006. Epub 2009 Oct 31.

Common problems related to the use of number needed to treat.

Author information

  • 1Institute of Clinical Epidemiology, Medical Faculty, Martin-Luther-University of Halle-Wittenberg, Magdeburger Strasse 8, 06097 Halle, Germany. andreas.stang@medizin.uni-halle.de

Abstract

OBJECTIVE:

To illustrate basic issues that have to be taken into account when study results are presented by means of the number needed to treat (NNT).

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING:

This article presents an overview of common problems related to the NNT with corresponding explanations.

RESULTS:

Without stating the direction of the effect, the alternative treatment, the treatment period, and the follow-up period, information in terms of NNTs is uninterpretable. The naive use of person-time data for the calculation of NNTs is frequently inappropriate. Rounding NNTs to the next upward integer may obscure differences among therapies.

CONCLUSIONS:

The basic information about which treatments are compared, the treatment period, the follow-up period, and the direction of the effect should be given when study results are presented in terms of NNTs. Adequate methods should be used for point and interval estimation of NNTs. Unnecessary rounding of NNTs should be avoided. In more complicated situations of confounding or varying follow-up times, the use of more sophisticated methods is required with increasing potential for misinterpretation.

PMID:
19880287
DOI:
10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.08.006
[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
PubMed Commons home

PubMed Commons

0 comments
How to join PubMed Commons

    Supplemental Content

    Full text links

    Icon for Elsevier Science
    Loading ...
    Support Center