http://www.cebm.net/nnts.asp
Jonathan
On 11 Oct 2006, at 15:01, Joseph WATINE wrote:
> it is certainly true that many patients are given treatment without
> clear evidence that it is useful for them, but my understanding of
> NNT differs from yours
>
> doesn't a NNT of 200 mean that it is necessary to have 200 patients
> for the effect of the therapy to be statistically significant?
>
>> From: Reynolds Tim <[log in to unmask]>
>> Reply-To: Reynolds Tim <[log in to unmask]>
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: fallacious argument?
>> Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 11:38:19 +0100
>>
>> We give treatment with clear evidence that it does'nt work to a
>> great number of patients...
>>
>> With statins the NNT to prevent a cardiac event varies up to 200+
>> depending on the study. It has been proposed that we should also
>> looka the the NTN (number-treated-needlessly) i.e. those not
>> benefitting from treatment - which in the example above NNT = 1 in
>> 200 NTN = 199...
>>
>>
>>
>> *********************************************************************
>> ****************
>> Prof. Tim Reynolds,
>> Queen's Hospital,
>> Belvedere Rd,
>> Burton-on-Trent,
>> Staffordshire,
>> DE13 0RB
>>
>> work tel: 01283 511511 ext. 4035
>> work fax: 01283 593064
>> work email: [log in to unmask]
>> home email: [log in to unmask]
>> *********************************************************************
>> *****************
>> IMPORTANT: This email is intended for the use of the individual
>> addressee(s)named above and may contain information that is
>> confidential privileged or unsuitable for overly sensitive persons
>> with low self-esteem, no sense of humour or irrational religious
>> beliefs. If you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination,
>> distribution or copying of this email is not authorized (either
>> explicitly or implicitly) and constitutes an irritating social
>> faux pas. Unless the word absquatulation has been used in its
>> correct context somewhere other than in this warning, it does not
>> have any legal or grammatical use and may be ignored. No animals
>> were harmed in the transmission of this email, though the kelpie
>> next door is living on borrowed time, let me tell you. Those of
>> you with an overwhelming fear of the unknown will be gratified to
>> learn there is no hidden message revealed by reading this
>> backwards, so just ignore that Alert Notice from Macroshaft.
>> However, by pouring a complete circle of salt around yourself and
>> your computer you can ensure that no harm befalls you and your
>> pets. If you have received this eMail in error, please add some
>> nutmeg and egg whites, whisk, and place in a warm oven for 40
>> minutes.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Clinical biochemistry discussion list [mailto:ACB-CLIN-CHEM-
>> [log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Joseph WATINE
>> Sent: 11 October 2006 10:24
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: fallacious argument?
>>
>>
>> one of you wrote, a few days ago, that the lack of evidence for
>> the effect
>> of an intervention is not equal to evidence that the intervention
>> has no
>> effect
>>
>> isn't this kind of argument a little bit fallacious?
>>
>> wouldn't some patients, health-professionals, or tax-payers, find
>> it hard to
>> swallow that interventions with no proven benefits (but with
>> proven costs or
>> side effects) are recommended by our profession?
>>
>> Dr Joseph Watine, hôpital de Rodez, France
>>
>> ------ACB discussion List Information--------
>> This is an open discussion list for the academic and clinical
>> community working in clinical biochemistry. Please note, archived
>> messages are public and can be viewed via the internet. Views
>> expressed are those of the individual and they are responsible for
>> all message content. ACB Web Site http://www.acb.org.uk List
>> Archives http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/ACB-CLIN-CHEM-GEN.html
>> List Instructions (How to leave etc.) http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/
>>
>> ------ACB discussion List Information--------
>> This is an open discussion list for the academic and clinical
>> community working in clinical biochemistry.
>> Please note, archived messages are public and can be viewed
>> via the internet. Views expressed are those of the individual and
>> they are responsible for all message content.
>> ACB Web Site
>> http://www.acb.org.uk
>> List Archives
>> http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/ACB-CLIN-CHEM-GEN.html
>> List Instructions (How to leave etc.)
>> http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/
>
> ------ACB discussion List Information--------
> This is an open discussion list for the academic and clinical
> community working in clinical biochemistry.
> Please note, archived messages are public and can be viewed
> via the internet. Views expressed are those of the individual and
> they are responsible for all message content.
> ACB Web Site
> http://www.acb.org.uk
> List Archives
> http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/ACB-CLIN-CHEM-GEN.html
> List Instructions (How to leave etc.)
> http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/
------ACB discussion List Information--------
This is an open discussion list for the academic and clinical
community working in clinical biochemistry.
Please note, archived messages are public and can be viewed
via the internet. Views expressed are those of the individual and
they are responsible for all message content.
ACB Web Site
http://www.acb.org.uk
List Archives
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/ACB-CLIN-CHEM-GEN.html
List Instructions (How to leave etc.)
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/
|