Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T09:19:40.059Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Numbers-needed-to-treat analysis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2018

Daniel McQueen
Daniel McQueen*
Affiliation:
Barnet Enfield and Haringey Mental Health Trust, London, UK. Email: [email protected]
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content. As you have access to this content, full HTML content is provided on this page. A PDF of this content is also available in through the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
Type
Correspondence
Information
Advances in Psychiatric Treatment , Volume 17 , Issue 2 , March 2011 , pp. 158
Copyright
Copyright © The Royal College of Psychiatrists, 2011 

In their excellent article, Hodgson et al state, ‘By convention, the NNT and NNH are always rounded up to the nearest whole figure’ (Reference Hodgson, Cookson and TaylorHodgson 2011). A more cautious convention is to round the number needed to treat (NNT) up, to avoid overstating the effectiveness, and to round the number needed to harm (NNH) down, to avoid understating the harms (BMJ 2011).

References

BMJ (2011) Helping you to practise evidence-based medicine. Clinical Evidence glossary. BMJ Publishing Group (http://clinicalevidence.bmj.com/ceweb/resources/glossary.jsp).Google Scholar
Hodgson, R, Cookson, J, Taylor, M (2011) Numbers-needed-to-treat analysis: an explanation using antipsychotic trials in schizophrenia. Advances in Psychiatric Treatment 17: 63–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Submit a response

eLetters

No eLetters have been published for this article.