The "number needed to treat" turns 20 - and continues to be used and misused

CMAJ. Canadian Medical Association Journal

Volumn 179, Issue 6, 2008, Pages 549-553

  McAlister, Finlay A ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA   (Canada)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA HOSPITAL   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CLINICAL EFFECTIVENESS; CLINICAL TRIAL; EFFECTIVE POPULATION SIZE; INTERVENTION STUDY; RESEARCH SUBJECT; REVIEW; RISK REDUCTION; SAMPLE SIZE; TREATMENT DURATION; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 51649085327     PISSN: 08203946     EISSN: 14882329     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.080484     Document Type: Article

References (46)

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. Moher D, Schulz KF, Altman D. The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomized trials. JAMA 2001;285:1987-91;9:30.
3. Muir Gray JA. Evidence-based healthcare: how to make health policy and management decisions. Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone, 1997.
4. Kumana CR, Cheung BMY, Lauder IJ. Gauging the impact of statins using number needed to treat. JAMA 1999;282:1899-901.
5. Osiri M, Suarez-Almazor ME, Wells GA, et al. Number needed to treat (NNT): implication in rheumatology clinical practice. Ann Rheum Dis 2003;62:316-21.
6. Huynh NT, Rompré PH, Montplaisir JY, et al. Comparison of various treatments for sleep bruxism using determinants of number needed to treat and effect size. Int J Prosthodont 2006;19:435-41.
7. Otterstad JE, Sleight P. The HOPE study: comparison with other trials of secondary prevention. Eur Heart J 2001;22:1307-10.
8. Chong CAKY, Tomlinson G, Chodirker L, et al. An unadjusted NNT was a moderately good predictor of health benefit. J Clin Epidemiol 2006;59:224-33.
9. McAlister FA, Straus SE, Haynes RB, et al.; Evidence-based Medicine Working Group. Users' guides to the medical literature: XX. Integrating research evidence with the care of the individual patient. JAMA 2000;283:2829-36.
10. Alter DA, Manuel DG, Gunraj N, et al. Age, risk-benefit trade-offs, and the projected effects of evidence-based therapies. Am J Med 2004;116:540-5.
11. McAlister FA. Relative treatment effects are consistent across a spectrum of underlying risks...usually. Int J Epidemiol 2002;31:76-7.
12. Gueyffier F, Boutitie F, Boissel JP, et al. Effect of antihypertensive drug treatment on cardiovascular outcomes in women and men. A meta-analysis of individual patient data from randomized, controlled trials. Ann Intern Med 1997;126:761-7.
13. Antiplatelet Trialists' Collaboration. Collaborative overview of randomised trials of antiplatelet therapy. Prevention of death, myocardial infarction, and stroke by prolonged antiplatelet therapy in various categories of patients. BMJ 1994;308:81-106.
14. Fox KA, Steg PG, Eagle KA, et al. GRACE Investigators. Decline in rates of death and heart failure in acute coronary syndromes, 1999-2006. JAMA 2007;297:1892-900.
15. Smeeth L, Haines A, Ebrahim S. Numbers needed to treat derived from meta-analyses - sometimes informative, usually misleading. BMJ 1999;318:1548-51.
16. Rothwell PM, Eliasziw M, Gutnikov SA, et al.; Carotid Endarterectomy Trialists' Collaboration. Analysis of pooled data from the randomized controlled trials of endarterectomy for symptomatic carotid stenosis. Lancet 2003;361:107-16.
17. Sever PS, Poulter NR, Dahlof B, et al. Different time course for prevention of coronary and stroke events by atorvastatin in the Anglo-Scandinavian Cardiac Outcomes Trial-Lipid-Lowering Arm (ASCOT-LLA). Am J Cardiol 2005;96(Suppl):39F-44F.
18. Barratt AL, Wyer PC, Guyatt G, et al. NNT for studies with long-term follow-up [authors' response]. CMAJ 2005;172:613-5.
19. Tan LB, Murphy R. Shifts in mortality curves: Saving or extending lives? Lancet 1999;354:1378-81.
20. Lubsen J, Hoes A, Grobbee D. Implications of trial results: the potentially misleading notions of number need to treat and average duration of life gained. Lancet 2000;356:1757-9.
21. SOLVD Investigators. Effect of enalapril on survival in patients with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction and congestive heart failure. N Engl J Med 1991;325:293-302.
22. Torp-Pedersen C. Kober L for The Trandolapril Cardiac Evaluation Study Group. Effect of ACE inhibitor trandolapril on life expectancy of patients with reduced left-ventricular function after acute myocardial infarction. Lancet 1999;354:9-12.
23. Halvorsen PA, Selmer R, Kristiansen IS. Different ways to describe the benefits of risk-reducing treatments. A randomized trial. Ann Intern Med 2007;146:848-56.
24. Caro JJ, Ishak KJ, Caro I, et al. Comparing medications in a therapeutic area using an NNT model. Value Health 2004;7:585-94.
25. Christensen PM, Kristiansen IS. Number needed to treat (NNT) - Needs treatment with care. Basic Clin Pharmacol Toxicol 2006;99:12-6.
26. Hochberg MC, Ross PD, Black D, et al.; Fracture Intervention Trial Research Group. Larger increases in bone mineral density during alendronate therapy are associated with a lower risk of new vertebral fractures in women with postmenopausal osteoporosis. Arthritis Rheum 1999;42:1246-54.
27. Altman DG. Confidence intervals for the number needed to treat. BMJ 1998;317:1309-12.
28. McAlister FA, O'Connor AM, Wells G, et al. When should hypertension be treated? The different perspectives of Canadian patients and family physicians. CMAJ 2000;163:403-8.
29. Halvorsen PA, Kristiansen IS. Decisions on drug therapies by number needed to treat: a randomized trial. Arch Intern Med 2005;165:1140-6.
30. Nexoe J, Kristiansen IS, Gyrd-Hansen D, et al. Influence of number needed to treat, costs and outcomes on preferences for a preventive drug. Fam Pract 2005;22:126-31.
31. Vist GE, Hagen KB, Devereaux PJ, et al. Systematic review to determine whether participation in a trial influences outcome. BMJ 2005;330:1175.
32. Gross CP, Krumholz HM, Van Wye G, et al. Does random treatment assignment cause harm to research participants? PLoS Med 2006;3:e188.
33. McAlister FA. Applying evidence to patient care: from black and white to shades of grey. Ann Intern Med 2003;138:938-9.
34. Kent DM, Alsheikh-Ali A, Hayward RA. Competing risk and heterogeneity of treatment effect in clinical trials. Trials 2008;9:30.
35. Assmann SF, Pocock SJ, Enos LE, et al. Subgroup analysis and other (mis)uses of baseline data in clinical trials. Lancet 2000;355:1064-9.
36. Straus SE. Individualizing treatment decisions. The likelihood of being helped or harmed. Eval Health Prof 2002;25:210-24.
37. Naylor CD, Chen E, Strauss B. Measured enthusiasm: Does the method of reporting trial results alter perceptions of therapeutic effectiveness? Ann Intern Med 1992;117:916-21.
38. Forrow L, Taylor WC, Arnold RM. Absolutely relative: how research results are summarized can affect treatment decisions. Am J Med 1992;92:121-4.
39. Hux JE, Naylor CD. Communicating the benefits of chronic preventative therapy: Does the format of efficacy data determine patients' acceptance of treatment? Med Decis Making 1995;15:152-7.
40. 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.
41. 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.
42. Protheroe J, Fahey T, Montgomery AA, et al. The impact of patients' preferences in the treatment of atrial fibrillation: observational study of patient-based decision analysis. BMJ 2000;320:1380-4.
43. Sheridan SL, Pignone M. Numeracy and the medical student's ability to interpret data. Eff Clin Pract 2002;5:35-40.
44. 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.
45. 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.
46. Bandolier: evidence based thinking about health care. Available: www.medicine.ox.ac.uk/bandolier/band17/b17-7.html (accessed 2008 July 21).