Literature DB >> 7873954

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

R J Cook1, D L Sackett.   

Abstract

The relative benefit of an active treatment over a control is usually expressed as the relative risk, the relative risk reduction, or the odds ratio. These measures are used extensively in both clinical and epidemiological investigations. For clinical decision making, however, it is more meaningful to use the measure "number needed to treat." This measure is calculated on the inverse of the absolute risk reduction. It has the advantage that it conveys both statistical and clinical significance to the doctor. Furthermore, it can be used to extrapolate published findings to a patient at an arbitrary specified baseline risk when the relative risk reduction associated with treatment is constant for all levels of risk.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1995        PMID: 7873954      PMCID: PMC2548824          DOI: 10.1136/bmj.310.6977.452

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  BMJ        ISSN: 0959-8138


  4 in total

1.  Evidence-based medicine. A new approach to teaching the practice of medicine.

Authors: 
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1992-11-04       Impact factor: 56.272

2.  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

3.  Who benefits from medical interventions?

Authors:  G D Smith; M Egger
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1994-01-08

Review 4.  Blood pressure, stroke, and coronary heart disease. Part 2, Short-term reductions in blood pressure: overview of randomised drug trials in their epidemiological context.

Authors:  R Collins; R Peto; S MacMahon; P Hebert; N H Fiebach; K A Eberlein; J Godwin; N Qizilbash; J O Taylor; C H Hennekens
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1990-04-07       Impact factor: 79.321

  4 in total
  425 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.  The effects of information framing on the practices of physicians.

Authors:  P McGettigan; K Sly; D O'Connell; S Hill; D Henry
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  1999-10       Impact factor: 5.128

Review 3.  Nonpharmacologic therapy of osteoarthritis.

Authors:  P J Perkins; M Doherty
Journal:  Curr Rheumatol Rep       Date:  1999-10       Impact factor: 4.592

4.  Cost effectiveness of HMG-CoA reductase inhibitor (statin) treatment related to the risk of coronary heart disease and cost of drug treatment.

Authors:  D M Pickin; C J McCabe; L E Ramsay; N Payne; I U Haq; W W Yeo; P R Jackson
Journal:  Heart       Date:  1999-09       Impact factor: 5.994

Review 5.  Antenatal treatment of a mother bearing a fetus with congenital adrenal hyperplasia.

Authors:  C G Brook
Journal:  Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed       Date:  2000-05       Impact factor: 5.747

6.  Seeing what you want to see in randomised controlled trials: versions and perversions of UKPDS data. United Kingdom prospective diabetes study.

Authors:  J McCormack; T Greenhalgh
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2000-06-24

7.  Disease impact number and population impact number: population perspectives to measures of risk and benefit.

Authors:  R F Heller; A J Dobson
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2000-10-14

8.  Evidence-based medicine: a commentary on common criticisms.

Authors:  S E Straus; F A McAlister
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2000-10-03       Impact factor: 8.262

9.  Risks and benefits of preoperative high dose methylprednisolone in surgical patients: a systematic review.

Authors:  S Sauerland; M Nagelschmidt; P Mallmann; E A Neugebauer
Journal:  Drug Saf       Date:  2000-11       Impact factor: 5.606

Review 10.  Antidepressants versus psychological treatments and their combination for bulimia nervosa.

Authors:  J Bacaltchuk; P Hay; R Trefiglio
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2001
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.