Responding to the message of <[log in to unmask]>
Thanks Paul, it kind of makes sense. I agree NNT should ne interprated with a
lot from concern about the underlying risk factors than purely as an isolated
number. I think this ought to be specifies every time we talk or teach NNT to
other's.
Just as a blood pressure of 142/94 could mean different treatments modalities in
different group of patients with different risks factors (JNC 6), NNT could be
varied for different patient groups with the same problem, depending on there
risks. However when we adjust for the risks factor and presume that our study
population consists of a homogeneous group of subjects with comparable medical
histories, is NNT of 20 with say NNH of 50 a good bargain. Did I start the
confusion all over again?
Cheers.
Amit Ghosh, MD, DM
Assistant Professor
Division of General Internal Medicine
University of Minnesota
Box 741, 420 Delaware St, SE
Minneapolis, MN 55455
USA
Phone 612-626-1477
Fax:612-624-3189
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|