Hi!!
Yes, it is a nice question.
Please, Takeo may you indicate the source of your explanation? I think that
it would be very useful.
A handshake from Venezuela
Arturo Marti-Carvajal
Universidad de Carabobo
Venezuela
At 07:31 6/03/99 +0900, you wrote:
>Hello! That's very good question.
>
>I think the NNTs of 2-4 are for therapeutic usage of drugs,and the NNTs
> over 20 are for preventitive usage of drugs.
>i.e. for acute condition,NNTs of 2-4:for chronic condition,NNTs of over 20.
>
>
>> A question I have , is what is a good number for NNT? Bandolier 12
>>indicated that a NNT of 2-4 is suggestive of good NNT ( i.e., ARR of
>>0.25-0.50). However most the the RCT reported in journal s NEJM, Annals
>>etc have statistical significance however their NNT are usually over 20,
>>ie, finasteride for BPH( NNT= 30). I reckon one of the disadvantages of
>>NNT maybe that despite the NNT being over 20 , these patients may have
>>significant improvement in quality of life and other subjective issues.
>>Or is the fact that NNT of 2-4 an over enthusiastic expectation when it
>>comes to a clinical response.I guess in the case of chronic diseases
>>with outcomes occurring over decades a NNT of 50 would be acceptable,
>>however in other more acute conditions one would consider a smaller
>>number for NNT as desirable. Could the members throw some additional
>>light in the defining what is a good number for NNT.
>**********************************************
>Saio,Takeo
>///////////////CHIAKI hospital,JAPAN/////////
>e-mail;[log in to unmask]
>**********************************************
>
>
>
>
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|