This Article  • Full text  • PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citation map  • Citing articles on HighWire  • Citing articles on Web of Science (13)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal  Topic Collections  • Evidence-Based Medicine  • Randomized Controlled Trial  • Alert me on articles by topic  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

A Randomized Trial

Peder Andreas Halvorsen, MD; Ivar Sønbø Kristiansen, PhD

Arch Intern Med. 2005;165:1140-1146.

Background  The number needed to treat (NNT) has been promoted as the preferred effect measure when patients and physicians share decision making. Our aim was to explore the impact of the NNT on laypeople’s decisions about preventive drug therapies.

Methods  Two thousand subjects were selected for the survey; 1201 (60%) responded for a representative sample of the Norwegian population. Respondents were allocated to scenarios with random combinations of a disease to be prevented, drug treatment costs, and effect size in terms of NNT. They were interviewed about their hypothetical consent to the therapy, then randomized to different interpretations of NNT and asked to reconsider their initial responses.

Results  The proportions consenting varied from 76% when the NNT was 50 to 67% when the NNT was 1600 (P for trend = .06). When faced with the prospect of avoiding lethal disease, stroke, myocardial infarction, or hip fracture, the proportions consenting were 84%, 76%, 68%, and 53%, respectively (P<.01). Across different treatment costs ($37, $68, $162, and $589) the proportions consenting varied from 78% to 61% (P for trend <.01). Twenty-four percent of the respondents changed their decision when informed about how to interpret the NNT, and 93% of those switched from positive to negative decisions, regardless of the magnitude of NNT.

Conclusions  Respondents’ decisions were influenced by the type of disease to be prevented and the cost of the intervention, but not by the effect size in terms of NNT. This suggests that NNT is difficult to understand and that other effect formats should be considered for shared decision making.

Author Affiliations: The Research Unit of General Practice, Institute of Public Health, University of Southern Denmark, Odense (Drs Halvorsen and Kristiansen); and Department of Health Management and Health Economics, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway (Dr Kristiansen).

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?

THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

Treating Patients With Ischemic Stroke With Tissue Plasminogen Activator in the 3.5- to 4-Hour Window: Numbers Support Benefit but the Message Is to Still Go Fast
Kurth and Tzourio
Stroke 2009;40:2295-2296.
FULL TEXT  

The "number needed to treat" turns 20 -- and continues to be used and misused
McAlister
CMAJ 2008;179:549-553.
FULL TEXT  

Review Article: Critiques of the risk concept -- valid or not?
Nexoe et al.
Scand J Public Health 2007;35:648-654.
ABSTRACT  

Different Ways to Describe the Benefits of Risk-Reducing Treatments: A Randomized Trial
Halvorsen et al.
ANN INTERN MED 2007;146:848-856.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Benign breast disease and breast cancer.
Kristiansen et al.
NEJM 2005;353:1856-1858.
FULL TEXT