4 ms·
I think you're describing "Number Needed to Treat" (NNT, or 'How many patients need to be treated with a drug or procedure for one patient to get the hoped-for
by randcraw 10y ago
I think you're describing "Number Needed to Treat" (NNT, or 'How many patients need to be treated with a drug or procedure for one patient to get the hoped-for benefit?'), which is described briefly just before the graphic you mention.
NNT is a great idea, but not as practically useful for individuals as for policymakers, IMHO. I suspect few primary care clinicians can discuss current and precise NNT figures. More likely they will rely on standard of care advice from the AMA or their subspecialty board that itself was shaped by NNTs.
- maxerickson 10y agoNo, I was specifically talking about the sort of framework used in the graphic, where the outcome of a treatment may be beneficial, benign or harmful. I'll repost my second paragraph too: So one way to avoid unnecessary treatments is to seek out doctors who are willing to discuss treatments in similar terms. They may lack the information to build such a precise estimate, but they should still be willing to talk in a clear way about the risks and benefits of a given treatment. Yes, it will be difficult for providers to have detailed information. They should still be open to discussing downsides and tradeoffs. It's a red flag if they hesitate to talk in terms of tradeoffs or to take the time to discuss the expected benefits and potential downsides.