Number needed to treat: Misleading, misunderstood, misused?;Antall som må behandles (NNT) - Misvisende, misforstått, misbrukt?

Tidsskrift for den Norske Laegeforening

Volumn 124, Issue 15, 2004, Pages 1926-1929

  Wisløff, Torbjørn ^a   Halvorsen, Peder A ^b   Kristiansen, Ivar Sønbø ^a  

^a Nasjonalt Kunnskapssenter for H   (Norway)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TROMSØ   (Norway)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CHRONIC DISEASE; CLINICAL OBSERVATION; NUMBER NEEDED TO TREAT; PROBLEM SOLVING; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; TIME; TREATMENT PLANNING; CLINICAL MEDICINE; CONFIDENCE INTERVAL; DECISION MAKING; HUMAN; RISK ASSESSMENT; SAMPLE SIZE; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

CHRONIC DISEASE; CLINICAL MEDICINE; CONFIDENCE INTERVALS; DATA INTERPRETATION, STATISTICAL; DECISION MAKING; HUMANS; RISK ASSESSMENT; SAMPLE SIZE; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 4043098248     PISSN: 00292001     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. Laupacis A, Sackett DL, Roberts RS. An assessment of clinically useful measures of the consequences of treatment. N Engl J Med 1988; 318: 1728-33.
2. McCormack JP, Levine M. Meaningful interpretation of risk reduction from clinical drug trials. Ann Pharmacother 1993; 27: 1272-7.
3. Cook RJ, Sackett DL. The number needed to treat: a clinically useful measure of treatment effect. BMJ 1995; 310: 452-4.
4. Jaeschke R, Guyatt G, Shannon H et al. Basic statistics for clinicians: 3. Assessing the effects of treatment: measures of association. CMAJ 1995; 152: 351-7.
5. Schulzer M, Mancini GB. «Unqualified success» and «unmitigated failure»: number-needed-to-treat-related concepts for assessing treatment efficacy in the presence of treatment-induced adverse events, Int J Epidemiol 1996; 25: 704-12.
6. Fahey T, Griffiths S, Peters TJ. Evidence based purchasing: understanding results of clinical trials and systematic reviews. BMJ 1995; 311: 1056-9.
7. McQuay HJ, Moore RA. Using numerical results from systematic reviews in clinical practice. Ann Intern Med 1997; 126: 712-20.
8. Altman DG. Confidence intervals for the number needed to treat. BMJ 1998; 317: 1309-12.
9. Altman DG, Andersen PK. Calculating the number needed to treat for trials where the outcome is time to an event. BMJ 1999; 319: 1492-5.
10. Massel D, Cruickshank MK. The number remaining at risk: an adjunct to the number needed to treat. Can J Cardiol 2002; 18: 254-8.
11. Sackett DL, Richardson WS, Rosenberg W et al. Evidence-based medicine. How to practice and teach EBM. New York: Churchill Livingstone, 2000.
12. Skolbekken JA. Om leger, journalister og plikten til å kjenne sin dødsrisiko. Tidsskr Nor Lægeforen 2003; 123: 1548-9.
13. Wik L, Hansen TB, Fylling F et al. Delaying defibrillation to give basic cardiopulmonary resuscitation to patients with out-of-hospital ventricular fibrillation: a randomized trial. JAMA 2003; 289: 1389-95.
14. Forrow L, Taylor WC, Arnold RM. Absolutely relative: how research results are summarized can affect treatment decisions. Am J Med 1992; 92: 121-4.
15. Bobbio M, Demichelis B, Giustetto G. Completeness of reporting trial results: effect on physicians' willingness to prescribe. Lancet 1994; 343: 1209-11.
16. Bucher HC, Weinbacher M, Gyr K. Influence of method of reporting study results on decision of physicians to prescribe drugs to lower cholesterol concentration. BMJ 1994; 309: 761-4.
17. Hux JE, Naylor CD. Communicating the benefits of chronic preventive therapy: does the format of efficacy data determine patients' acceptance of treatment? Med Decis Making 1995; 15: 152-7.
18. Cranney M, Walley T. Same information, different decisions: the influence of evidence on the management of hypertension in the elderly. Br J Gen Pract 1996; 46: 661-3.
19. Misselbrook D, Armstrong D. Patients' responses to risk information about the benefits of treating hypertension. Br J Gen Pract 2001; 51: 276-9.
20. Nexoe J, Gyrd-Hansen D, Kragstrup J et al. Danish GPs' perception of disease risk and benefit of prevention. Fam Pract 2002; 19: 3-6.
21. Fretheim A, Bjorndal A, Oxman AD et al. Retningslinjer for medikamentell primærforebygging av hjerte- og karsykdommer - hvem bør behandles? Tidsskr Nor Lægeforen 2002; 122: 2277-81.
22. Meland E, Ellekjaer H, Gjelsvik B et al. Medikamentell forebygging av hjerte- og karsykdommer i allmennpraksis. Tidsskr Nor Lægeforen 2000; 120: 2643-7.
23. San Laureano JA, Briganti EM, Colville DJ. Number needed to treat: a useful new method of assessing the magnitude of treatment effect and its application to the management of diabetic retinopathy. Aust N Z J Ophthalmol 1999; 27: 137-42.
24. Christensen PM, Brosen K, Brixen K et al. Expressing effects of osteoporosis interventions in terms of postponing of fractures. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 2002; 58: 629-33.
25. Kristiansen IS, Gyrd-Hansen D. Cost-effectiveness analysis based on the number-needed-to-treat: common sense or non-sense? Health Economics 2004; 13: 9-19.
26. Laupacis A, Sackett DL, Roberts RS. Therapeutic priorities of Canadian internists. CMAJ 1990; 142: 329-33.
27. Kristiansen IS, Gyrd-Hansen D, Nexoe J et al. Number needed to treat: easily understood and intuitively meaningful? Theoretical considerations and a randomized trial. J Clin Epidemiol 2002; 55: 888-92.
28. Christensen PM, Brixen K, Brøsen K et al. A Randomized trial of laypersons' perception of the benefit of osteoporosis therapy: number needed to treat versus postponement of hip fracture. Clin Ther 2003; 25: 2575-85.
29. Halvorsen PA, Kristiansen IS, Aasland OG et al. Medical doctors' perception of the «number needed to treat» (NNT). A survey of doctors' recommendations for two therapies with different NNT. Scand J Prim Health Care 2003; 21: 162-6.
30. Sheridan SL, Pignone MP, Lewis CL. A Randomized comparison of patients' understanding of number needed to treat and other common risk reduction formats. J Gen Intern Med 2003; 18: 884-92.
31. Hutton JL. Number needed to treat: properties and problems. J R Statist Soc 2000; 163: 403-19.
32. Kristiansen IS, Stavem K, Linnestad K et al. Evaluering av medisinske metoder - kan vi stole på kostnad-effekt-analyser? Tidsskr Nor Lægeforen 2003; 123: 657-60.
33. Kristiansen IS. Hvor mye bør samfunnet være villig til å betale for helseforbedringer? Verdien av liv og helse. Oslo: Universitetet i Oslo, 2003: 55-68.
34. Kristiansen IS, Nexoe J, Gyrd-Hansen D et al. NNT is not easily understood. Fam Pract 2002; 19: 566-7.
35. Sheridan SL, Pignone M. Numeracy and the medical student's ability to interpret data. Eff Clin Pract 2002; 5: 35-40.
36. Schwartz LM, Woloshin S, Black WC et al. The role of numeracy in understanding the benefit of screening mammography. Ann Intern Med 1997; 127: 966-72.