Evaluation & the Health Professions

 

Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Register here to gain access to SAGE's 500+ Journals Online

Click here to sign up for SAGE Journal Email Alerts today!

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Ebrahim, S.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Ebrahim, S.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
Evaluation & the Health Professions, Vol. 24, No. 2, 152-164 (2001)
DOI: 10.1177/01632780122034858

The Use of Numbers Needed to Treat Derived from Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis

Caveats and Pitfalls

Shah Ebrahim

University of Bristol

Numbers needed to treat (NNTs) may be used to present the effects of treatment and are the reciprocal of the absolute difference between treatment and control groups in a randomized controlled trial. NNTs are sensitive to factors that change the baseline risk of trial participants: the outcome considered; characteristics of patients; secular trends in incidence and case-fatality; and clinical setting. NNTs derived from pooled absolute risk differences in meta-analyses are commonly presented and easily calculated by meta-analytic software but may be seriously misleading because of heterogeneity between trials included in meta-analyses. Meaningful NNTs are obtained by applying the pooled relative risk reductions calculated from meta-analyses or individual trials to the baseline risk relevant to specific patient groups. This process will give a range of NNTs depending on whether patients are at high, low, or intermediate levels of risk, rather than a potentially misleading single number.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 ANN INTERN MEDHome page
T. A. Shamliyan, R. L. Kane, J. Wyman, and T. J. Wilt
Systematic Review: Randomized, Controlled Trials of Nonsurgical Treatments for Urinary Incontinence in Women
Ann Intern Med, March 18, 2008; 148(6): 459 - 473.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 CMAJHome page
K. L. Lanctot, N. Herrmann, K. K. Yau, L. R. Khan, B. A. Liu, M. M. LouLou, and T. R. Einarson
Efficacy and safety of cholinesterase inhibitors in Alzheimer's disease: a meta-analysis
Can. Med. Assoc. J., September 16, 2003; 169(6): 557 - 564.
[Abstract] [Full Text]