Rapid responses are electronic letters to the editor. They enable our users to debate issues raised in articles published on thebmj.com. Although a selection of rapid responses will be included online and in print as readers' letters, their first appearance online means that they are published articles. If you need the url (web address) of an individual response, perhaps for citation purposes, simply click on the response headline and copy the url from the browser window. Letters are indexed in PubMed.
This letter provides misleading advice. It doesn't make sense to
apply a number
needed to treat (NNT) from a meta-analysis that includes trials with
differing populations that have widely differing underlying likelihoods of
The NNT is based on the absolute risk reduction, not a relative one (which
more constant and therefore makes sense for applying in a meta-analysis).
the underlying risk varies widely, say from primary prevention trials
(such as the
JUPITER trial) to diabetes patients (such as the HPS), then the NNT
spurious estimate of the number of people needed to be treated to prevent
event. Absolute risks really aren't useful in most meta-analyses.