Number-needed-to-treat (NNT)--needs treatment with care.

The "number-needed-to-treat" (NNT) was introduced about 15 years ago and has gained widespread use. It has been claimed to be "easy to understand" and gives "intuitive meaning". When used to measure the effectiveness of interventions targeting chronic disease processes e.g. atherosclerosis and osteoporosis, NNT (as well as relative and absolute risk reduction) does not capture the crucial time component, a fact that has important consequences: NNT varies over time, it may not mean that adverse events (fractures, myocardial infarctions etc.) are avoided, but simply that they are postponed. Finally, empirical studies indicate that lay people and doctors misunderstand NNT. We recommend that NNT be used with considerable care. There is probably no single effect measure that is able to convey all necessary information.

[1]  Kim Brixen,et al.  A randomized trial of laypersons' perception of the benefit of osteoporosis therapy: number needed to treat versus postponement of hip fracture. , 2003, Clinical therapeutics.

[2]  S. Cummings,et al.  Larger increases in bone mineral density during alendronate therapy are associated with a lower risk of new vertebral fractures in women with postmenopausal osteoporosis. Fracture Intervention Trial Research Group. , 1999, Arthritis and rheumatism.

[3]  D L Sackett,et al.  An assessment of clinically useful measures of the consequences of treatment. , 1988, The New England journal of medicine.

[4]  L. Køber,et al.  Effect of ACE inhibitor trandolapril on life expectancy of patients with reduced left-ventricular function after acute myocardial infarction. TRACE Study Group. Trandolapril Cardiac Evaluation. , 1999, Lancet.

[5]  T. Fahey,et al.  Evidence based purchasing: understanding results of clinical trials and systematic reviews , 1995, BMJ.

[6]  R M Arnold,et al.  Absolutely relative: how research results are summarized can affect treatment decisions. , 1992, The American journal of medicine.

[7]  D. Sackett.  Evidence-Based Medicine: How to Practice and Teach EBM , 2018 .

[8]  J. Kragstrup,et al.  Danish GPs' perception of disease risk and benefit of prevention. , 2002, Family practice.

[9]  Jesper Bo Nielsen,et al.  Number needed to treat: easily understood and intuitively meaningful? Theoretical considerations and a randomized trial. , 2002, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[10]  Kim Brixen,et al.  Expressing effects of osteoporosis interventions in terms of postponing of fractures , 2002, European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology.

[11]  Carmen L. Lewis,et al.  A randomized comparison of patients’ understanding of number needed to treat and other common risk reduction formats , 2003, Journal of general internal medicine.

[12]  K. Gyr,et al.  Influence of method of reporting study results on decision of physicians to prescribe drugs to lower cholesterol concentration , 1994, BMJ.

[13]  L. Køber,et al.  Effect of ACE inhibitor trandolapril on life expectancy of patients with reduced left-ventricular function after acute m yocardial infarction , 1999, The Lancet.

[14]  O. Aasland,et al.  Medical doctors' perception of the "number needed to treat" (NNT) , 2003, Scandinavian journal of primary health care.

[15]  D. Grimes,et al.  Patients' understanding of medical risks: implications for genetic counseling. , 1999, Obstetrics and gynecology.

[16]  J J Albers,et al.  Regression of coronary artery disease as a result of intensive lipid-lowering therapy in men with high levels of apolipoprotein B. , 1990, The New England journal of medicine.

[17]  Ivar Sønbø Kristiansen,et al.  Decisions on drug therapies by numbers needed to treat: a randomized trial. , 2005, Archives of internal medicine.

[18]  J. Hutton,et al.  Number needed to treat: properties and problems , 2000 .

[19]  C. Rembold.  Number needed to screen: development of a statistic for disease screening , 1998, BMJ.

[20]  Kimihiko Yamagishi.  When a 12.86% Mortality is More Dangerous than 24.14%: Implications for Risk Communication , 1997 .

[21]  M. Schulzer,et al.  'Unqualified success' and 'unmitigated failure': number-needed-to-treat-related concepts for assessing treatment efficacy in the presence of treatment-induced adverse events. , 1996, International journal of epidemiology.

[22]  B. Demichelis,et al.  Completeness of reporting trial results: effect on physicians' willingness to prescribe , 1994, The Lancet.

[23]  N Heddle,et al.  Basic statistics for clinicians: 3. Assessing the effects of treatment: measures of association. , 1995, CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne.

[24]  T. Walley,et al.  Same information, different decisions: the influence of evidence on the management of hypertension in the elderly. , 1996, The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners.

[25]  J. McCormack,et al.  Meaningful Interpretation of Risk Reduction from Clinical Drug Trials , 1993, The Annals of pharmacotherapy.

[26]  R F Nease,et al.  Perceptions of breast cancer risk and screening effectiveness in women younger than 50 years of age. , 1995, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[27]  Michael Pignone,et al.  Numeracy and the medical student's ability to interpret data. , 2002, Effective clinical practice : ECP.

[28]  M C Weinstein,et al.  Gains in life expectancy from medical interventions--standardizing data on outcomes. , 1998, The New England journal of medicine.

[29]  S. Teutsch,et al.  Cost-utility analyses of clinical preventive services: published ratios, 1976-1997. , 2000, American journal of preventive medicine.

[30]  G H Guyatt,et al.  Users' guides to the medical literature: XX. Integrating research evidence with the care of the individual patient. Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group. , 2000, JAMA.

[31]  C D Naylor,et al.  Measured Enthusiasm: Does the Method of Reporting Trial Results Alter Perceptions of Therapeutic Effectiveness? , 1992, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[32]  R. Riegelman,et al.  Adjusting the Number Needed to Treat , 1993, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[33]  John A. Baron,et al.  The framing effect of relative and absolute risk , 1993, Journal of General Internal Medicine.

[34]  P. Bakke,et al.  Cost-effectiveness of self-management in asthmatics: a 1-yr follow-up randomized, controlled trial. , 2001, The European respiratory journal.

[35]  C D Naylor,et al.  Communicating the Benefits of Chronic Preventive Therapy , 1995, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.