The "number needed to treat" turns 20 -- and continues to be used and misused
- 9 September 2008
- journal article
- Published by CMA Impact Inc. in CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association Journal
- Vol. 179 (6), 549-553
- https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.080484
Abstract
No abstract availableKeywords
This publication has 46 references indexed in Scilit:
- Competing risk and heterogeneity of treatment effect in clinical trialsTrials, 2008
- Does Random Treatment Assignment Cause Harm to Research Participants?PLoS Medicine, 2006
- Different Time Course for Prevention of Coronary and Stroke Events by Atorvastatin in the Anglo-Scandinavian Cardiac Outcomes Trial–Lipid-Lowering Arm (ASCOT-LLA)The American Journal of Cardiology, 2005
- Research issuesFamily Practice, 2005
- Systematic review to determine whether participation in a trial influences outcomeBMJ, 2005
- NNT for studies with long-term follow-upCMAJ : Canadian Medical Association Journal, 2005
- Influence of number needed to treat, costs and outcome on preferences for a preventive drugFamily Practice, 2004
- Number needed to treat (NNT): implication in rheumatology clinical practiceAnnals Of The Rheumatic Diseases, 2003
- Individualizing Treatment DecisionsEvaluation & the Health Professions, 2002
- An Assessment of Clinically Useful Measures of the Consequences of TreatmentNew England Journal of Medicine, 1988