HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Wen, L. Articles by Cornell, J. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Wen, L. Articles by Cornell, J.

LONNIE WEN, B.S.PHARM., PH.D., is Clinical Education Consultant, Pfizer Inc., San Antonio, TX; at the time of writing she was a fellow at VERDICT, South Texas Veterans Health Care System (STVHCS), San Antonio. ROBERT BADGETT, M.D., is Clinical Professor, Department of Medicine, University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio (UTHSCSA), and Investigator, VERDICT STVHCS. JOHN CORNELL, PH.D., is Associate Professor and Biostatistician, Geriatric Research Education and Clinical Centers/VERDICT, STVHCS, Center for Epidemiology and Biostatistics, UTHSCSA.

Address correspondence to Dr. Wen at Pfizer, Inc., 17827 Salado Draw, San Antonio, TX 78258 (k.wen{at}pfizer.com).

Purpose. The utility and limitations of the number needed to treat (NNT) are described and compared with those of alternative descriptors of therapeutic yield. Summary. Pharmacists, physicians, and patients are more likely to launch interventions based on relative measures of therapeutic yield. The NNT is a simple way to express the absolute therapeutic yield of an intervention. It is essential to take baseline risk and length of follow-up into account when calculating and interpreting absolute or relative measures of therapeutic yield. Patients may have difficulty understanding what the NNT tells them about the benefits and harms associated with an intervention, and confidence intervals for the NNT can be difficult to interpret. Relative measures of benefits are advantageous for comparing benefits across populations with different risks. The use of absolute measures to describe therapeutic options leads to more conservative decision-making and is potentially more useful. Among the absolute measures, the absolute risk reduction may be easier to understand than the NNT. These measures are most helpful when the best options are not clear or when patient input is needed. Personal digital assistants and Web-based tools can assist with calculations. Conclusion. The NNT is a useful measure but is influenced by numerous variables and may not be easily understood by patients. Index terms: Calculations; Computers; Decision-making; Methodology; Technology; Toxicity

 

This article has been cited by other articles:

				D. J. Betteridge, R. A. DeFronzo, and R. J. Chilton PROactive: time for a critical appraisal Eur. Heart J., April 2, 2008; 29(8): 969 - 983. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J.-R. Lee, C.-W. Jung, and Y.-H. Lee Reduction of pain during induction with target-controlled propofol and remifentanil Br. J. Anaesth., December 1, 2007; 99(6): 876 - 880. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				F. R. Ernst, H. Levy, and R. L. Qualy Simplified Pharmacoeconomics of Critical Care and Severe Sepsis J Intensive Care Med, September 1, 2007; 22(5): 283 - 293. [Abstract] [PDF]

				J. M. Durthaler and F. R. Ernst Evidence-based disease management in medication-use evaluation: Application to drotrecogin alfa (activated) in severe sepsis. Am. J. Health Syst. Pharm., August 1, 2006; 63(15): 1453 - 1460. [Full Text] [PDF]