NNT | Arthritis Information
Seriously, which of us are ever going to be asking this question? And what about those of us who can't do math in our heads? I don't see the value of this but maybe one of you do.
Pip
I know I sound like a broken record, but people really need a basic understanding of statistics. I don't mean to offend anyone. As a nation we are horribly science and math illiterate. Like the article said, people get so excited they piss their pants over the valid claim of a 30% reduction in heart attack risk... without stopping to think that the heart attack risk in the target population might be quite low to begin with, and that the risk of potential adverse effects might be higher than the absolute heart attack risk reduction.
This stuff should be taught in high school. I highly recommend picking up an intro-to-stats book. Get one of the high school/college study guides also, with problems you can work out and check your answers.
Many people see these drugs as an easy way out - you don't have to modify your diet as long as there's Zocor and Prevacid, right? And there are certainly people who think the doctor isn't doing his/her job unless they leave the office with a script in hand.
JasmineRain2009-01-12 21:54:07good article!! excellent lesson ... thanks.
'Number needed to treat' has a counterpart, too.
http://www.medicine.ox.ac.uk/bandolier/band55/b55-6.htmlSuzanne2009-01-13 10:31:35Suzanne -
I'd hadn't seen the first one and now you have the NNH. WOW! But again, I ask, seriously, how many of us with our multiple scrips ask either?
Pip
I've looked at them on meds that I'm not sure are worth the risk at this point.
FYI - it seems easier to them find on the FDA site.
People need to be aware of these numbers. I often research meds before I agree to take them. It can really be a numbers game.From the link I posted:
"The best NNT would, of course, be 1, when every patient with treatment benefited,
but no patient given control benefited.
Generally NNTs between 2 and 5 are
indicative of effective treatments, but NNTs of 20, 50 or 100 may be useful for
prophylactic treatments, like interventions to reduce death after heart attack.
It all depends on the intervention and the consequences.
For adverse effects, we can calculate a number needed to harm (NNH), in exactly
the same way as an NNT.
For an NNH, large numbers are obviously better than small
numbers, because that means that the adverse effect occurs with less frequency."
Easy enough to remember!
FYI-
NNT = Number Needed to Treat
[QUOTE=Pip!]Suzanne -
I do and the one time I didn't I almost died thanks to Vioxx and laziness on my part in not researching and looking at stats. LindyI stand corrected. I'd never heard of this...glad I have. That NNH interests me.
Pip
I read this thread this am and it went right over my head. I just reread the two articles and am pretty sure I got it. This is great ammunition as I am giving my poor, wonderful FP a break and have made an appointment with a new rheumatologist and an endocronologist. So, my question from today when prescribed a new drug will be "What is the NNT and NNH". Great thread, great.
An analysis:
The "number needed to treat" turns 20 — and continues to be used and misused
Finlay A. McAlister, MD MSc
Dr. McAlister is with the Division of General Internal Medicine, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alta.
http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/179/6/549I think his main point is that you can't use the NNT to compare to other treatments because it is based on a singular study.
Suzanne2009-01-14 10:35:33
Copyright ArthritisInsight.com