Analysis
The “number needed to treat” turns 20 — and continues to be used and misused
Finlay A. McAlister
CMAJ September 09, 2008 179 (6) 549-553; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.080484
Finlay A. McAlister MD MSc
In this issue
Article tools
Respond to this article
The “number needed to treat” turns 20 — and continues to be used and misused
Finlay A. McAlister
CMAJ Sep 2008, 179 (6) 549-553; DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.080484
Jump to section
- Article
- What is the number needed to treat?
- Nontherapy factors that affect the number needed to treat
- How important are these 3 factors?
- Are there other limitations?
- What other factors should be considered when interpreting trial-based estimates?
- What is the role of the number needed to treat?
- Final thoughts on the number needed to treat
- Footnotes
- REFERENCES
- Figures & Tables
- Responses
- Metrics
Related Articles
Cited By...
- Effectiveness of a multifaceted quality improvement intervention to improve patient outcomes after total hip and knee arthroplasty: a registry nested cluster randomised controlled trial
- Meta-analysis of cardiovascular superiority trials published in the New England Journal of Medicine to elucidate the concept of superiority margin
- Augmented Reality
- The "1-year-death number needed to treat" for comparing the impact of distinct interventions on patient outcomes
- Utility of the number needed to treat in paediatric haematological cancer randomised controlled treatment trials: a systematic review
- Number needed to treat in COPD: exacerbations versus pneumonias
- Treating Patients With Ischemic Stroke With Tissue Plasminogen Activator in the 3.5- to 4-Hour Window: Numbers Support Benefit but the Message Is to Still Go Fast
- Number needed to treat and baseline risks