In a message dated 5/20/99 6:51:45 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
[log in to unmask] writes:
> I don't think most clinicians can cope with this (I'd love to
> have more than anecdotal evidence to base this on, but I'm scared of
> risking mailbox overflow if I ask for a straw poll of you guys out
> there). I'm sure it's easier to give point and interval estimates
> for the ARR - which will be asymmetrical or more nearly symmetrical
> anyway - preferably expressed on a percent scale. For example, the
> ARR might be +10%, with 95% CI from -5% to +25%. The NNT is then 10,
> with CI from -infinity to -20 and from -4 to +infinity. I know
> which looks simpler to me.
I am not sure about all clinicians, but I personally find the concept of the
95% CI extending through infinity understandable and very helpful. It seems
likely to me that some busy clinicians will be less likely to adopt possibly
useless (or even harmful) therapies if they envision themselves working with
infinity patients before they might help only one. It seems to me to make
very clear that their time, not to mention their patients resources, is
wasted by using such a therapy.
Cheers and Best Wishes,
Brian
....................................
Brian Budenholzer, MD
Director, Clinical Enhancement & Development
CC18
Group Health Northwest
PO Box 204
Spokane, WA 99210-0204
USA
[log in to unmask]
509/ 838-9100 X 7393
fax: 509/ 458-0368
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|