Pooling numbers needed to treat may not be reliable
- Christopher Cates, General practitioner (chriscates@emailmsn.com)
- Manor View Practice, Bushey, Hertfordshire WD2 2NN
- University of Wales College of Medicine, Cardiff CF4 4XN
EDITOR—The number needed to treat has become a popular summary statistic for the results of randomised controlled trials because it combines the treatment effect with the background level of risk in the population studied. Patients in a single trial are randomised for both of these factors, and a confidence interval can be calculated which estimates the statistical uncertainty of the number needed to treat in this particular population.1
Problems arise when comparisons are made between numbers needed to treat from different randomised trials, or when the numbers needed to treat from several trials are combined in a meta-analysis. Often the background level of risk varies between trials in a non-random fashion, depending on the entry criteria in each trial. If the relative benefit of the treatment is constant across these background levels …
Sign in
Article access
Article access for 1 day
Purchase this article for £20 $30 €32*
The PDF version can be downloaded as your personal record
CiteULike
Connotea
Del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mendeley
Reddit
Technorati
Twitter
Stumbleupon
Rapid responses
Latest Responses
The word parameter is almost always wrong.
Published 25 May 2012
Re: Television shows and education about sexually transmitted infections: no laughing matter
Published 25 May 2012
Re: David Morrell
Published 25 May 2012
Re: Time to end the distinction between mental and neurological illnesses
Published 25 May 2012
Re: Are we nearly there with tranexamic acid?
Published 25 May 2012
Most responses
Venous thrombosis in users of non-oral hormonal contraception: follow-up study, Denmark 2001-10 (12 responses)
Published 10 May 2012 - 23:32
The psychiatric oligarchs who medicalise normality (8 responses)
Published 2 May 2012
Are doctors justified in taking industrial action in defence of their pensions? No (8 responses)
Published 8 May 2012 - 12:21
Are doctors justified in taking industrial action in defence of their pensions? Yes (8 responses)
Published 8 May 2012 - 12:21
The hardest thing: admitting error (7 responses)
Published 2 May 2012 - 12:27