Literature DB >> 15827840

Number needed to treat (or harm).

Martin R Tramèr1, Bernhard Walder.   

Abstract

The effect of a treatment versus controls may be expressed in relative or absolute terms. For rational decision-making, absolute measures are more meaningful. The number needed to treat, the reciprocal of the absolute risk reduction, is a powerful estimate of the effect of a treatment. It is particularly useful because it takes into account the underlying risk (what would happen without the intervention?). The number needed to treat tells us not only whether a treatment works but how well it works. Thus, it informs health care professionals about the effort needed to achieve a particular outcome. A number needed to treat should be accompanied by information about the experimental intervention, the control intervention against which the experimental intervention has been tested, the length of the observation period, the underlying risk of the study population, and an exact definition of the endpoint. A 95% confidence interval around the point estimate should be calculated. An isolated number needed to treat is rarely appropriate to summarize the usefulness of an intervention; multiple numbers needed to treat for benefit and harm are more helpful. Absolute risk reduction and number needed to treat should become standard summary estimates in randomized controlled trials.

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 15827840     DOI: 10.1007/s00268-005-7916-8

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  World J Surg        ISSN: 0364-2313            Impact factor:   3.352


  23 in total

Review 1.  Calculating the number needed to treat for trials where the outcome is time to an event.

Authors:  D G Altman; P K Andersen
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1999-12-04

Review 2.  A rational approach to the control of postoperative nausea and vomiting: evidence from systematic reviews. Part I. Efficacy and harm of antiemetic interventions, and methodological issues.

Authors:  M R Tramèr
Journal:  Acta Anaesthesiol Scand       Date:  2001-01       Impact factor: 2.105

3.  Epidural anaesthesia and analgesia and outcome of major surgery: a randomised trial.

Authors:  John R A Rigg; Konrad Jamrozik; Paul S Myles; Brendan S Silbert; Phillip J Peyton; Richard W Parsons; Karen S Collins
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2002-04-13       Impact factor: 79.321

4.  Using numerical results from systematic reviews in clinical practice.

Authors:  H J McQuay; R A Moore
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  1997-05-01       Impact factor: 25.391

5.  A randomized, controlled trial of the use of pulmonary-artery catheters in high-risk surgical patients.

Authors:  James Dean Sandham; Russell Douglas Hull; Rollin Frederick Brant; Linda Knox; Graham Frederick Pineo; Christopher J Doig; Denny P Laporta; Sidney Viner; Louise Passerini; Hugh Devitt; Ann Kirby; Michael Jacka
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2003-01-02       Impact factor: 91.245

6.  Prevention of bloodstream infections with central venous catheters treated with anti-infective agents depends on catheter type and insertion time: evidence from a meta-analysis.

Authors:  Bernhard Walder; Didier Pittet; Martin R Tramèr
Journal:  Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol       Date:  2002-12       Impact factor: 3.254

7.  An assessment of clinically useful measures of the consequences of treatment.

Authors:  A Laupacis; D L Sackett; R S Roberts
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1988-06-30       Impact factor: 91.245

8.  The number needed to treat: a clinically useful measure of treatment effect.

Authors:  R J Cook; D L Sackett
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1995-02-18

9.  The antiemetic efficacy of droperidol added to morphine patient-controlled analgesia: a randomized, controlled, multicenter dose-finding study.

Authors:  Xavier Culebras; Jean-Baptiste Corpataux; Giovanni Gaggero; Martin R Tramèr
Journal:  Anesth Analg       Date:  2003-09       Impact factor: 5.108

10.  Measured enthusiasm: does the method of reporting trial results alter perceptions of therapeutic effectiveness?

Authors:  C D Naylor; E Chen; B Strauss
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  1992-12-01       Impact factor: 25.391

View more
  12 in total

1.  Clinical trial results applied to management of the individual cancer patient.

Authors:  Ismail Jatoi; Michael A Proschan
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2006-07       Impact factor: 3.352

2.  Prophylactic antiemetic effects in gynecologic patients receiving fentanyl IV-patient controlled analgesia: comparison of combined treatment with ondansetron and dexamethasone with metoclopramide and dexamethasone.

Authors:  Young Seok Jee; Hea-Jo Yoon; Chang-Ha Jang
Journal:  Korean J Anesthesiol       Date:  2010-11-25

3.  Population pharmacokinetics and prophylactic anti-emetic efficacy of ramosetron in surgical patients.

Authors:  Yong-Hun Lee; Jae-Hyeon Seo; Kyung-Tae Min; Young-Jin Lim; Seong-Wook Jeong; Eun-Kyung Lee; Byung-Moon Choi; Gyu-Jeong Noh
Journal:  Br J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  2016-06-08       Impact factor: 4.335

4.  Benefit in regionalization of care for patients treated with nephrectomy: a Nationwide Inpatient Sample.

Authors:  Andreas Becker; Marco Bianchi; Jens Hansen; Zhe Tian; Shahrokh F Shariat; Ioana Popa; Paul Perrotte; Quoc-Dien Trinh; Pierre I Karakiewicz; Maxine Sun
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2014-02-11       Impact factor: 4.226

Review 5.  [Postoperative nausea and vomiting].

Authors:  M R Tramèr
Journal:  Anaesthesist       Date:  2007-07       Impact factor: 1.041

6.  Reduced risk of hypoglycemia with once-daily glargine versus twice-daily NPH and number needed to harm with NPH to demonstrate the risk of one additional hypoglycemic event in type 2 diabetes: Evidence from a long-term controlled trial.

Authors:  Julio Rosenstock; Vivian Fonseca; Stefan Schinzel; Marie-Paule Dain; Peter Mullins; Matthew Riddle
Journal:  J Diabetes Complications       Date:  2014-04-16       Impact factor: 2.852

7.  Biostatistics Series Module 8: Assessing Risk.

Authors:  Avijit Hazra; Nithya Gogtay
Journal:  Indian J Dermatol       Date:  2017 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 1.494

8.  Sex differences in the 1-year risk of dying following all-cause and cause-specific hospital admission after age 50 in comparison with a general and non-hospitalised population: a register-based cohort study of the Danish population.

Authors:  Andreas Höhn; Lisbeth Aagaard Larsen; Daniel Christoph Schneider; Rune Lindahl-Jacobsen; Roland Rau; Kaare Christensen; Anna Oksuzyan
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2018-07-17       Impact factor: 2.692

9.  Systematic review of reporting benefits and harms of surgical interventions in randomized clinical trials.

Authors:  F E Stubenrouch; E S Cohen; P M M Bossuyt; M J W Koelemay; P C R van der Vet; D T Ubbink
Journal:  BJS Open       Date:  2020-01-07

10.  Examining the potential benefits of the influenza vaccine against SARS-CoV-2: A retrospective cohort analysis of 74,754 patients.

Authors:  Susan M Taghioff; Benjamin R Slavin; Tripp Holton; Devinder Singh
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2021-08-03       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.