A randomized trial of laypersons' perception of the benefit of osteoporosis therapy: Number needed to treat versus postponement of hip fracture
References (16)
- et al.
Completeness of reporting trial results: Effect on physicians' willingness to prescribe
Lancet
(1994) - et al.
Absolutley relative: How research results are summarized can affect treatment decisions
Am J Med.
(1992) - et al.
Number needed to treat: Easily understood and intuitively meaningful? Theoretical considerations and a randomized trial
J Clin Epidemiol.
(2002) - et al.
Evidence based purchasing: Understanding results of clinical trials and systematic reviews
BMJ
(1995) - et al.
Same information, different decisions: The influence of evidence on the managemenet of hypertension in the elderly
Br J Gen Pract.
(1996) - et al.
Measured enthusiasm: Does the method of reporting trial results alter perceptions of therapeutric effectiveness?
Ann Intern Med.
(1992) - et al.
Danish GPs' perception of disease risk and benefit of prevention
Fam Pract.
(2002) - et al.
Communicating the benefits of chronic preventive therapy: Does the format of efficacy data determine patients' acceptance of treatment?
Med Decis Making
(1995)
Cited by (38)
Delaying clinical events among patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation treated with oral anticoagulants: Insights from the ARISTOPHANES study
2023, European Journal of Internal MedicineCitation Excerpt :Regardless, the difference in trends warrants future investigation of the roles of age, comorbidity, and adherence in the delay of clinical events. Given the general consistency with previous findings, our results may be helpful to augment traditional risk assessment measures with more granular information on the magnitude of treatment effects and thereby convey a more comprehensive assessment of treatment options to clinicians as well as patients [17–23]. Our results add to the growing body of evidence suggesting utility in time-to-event measures presented alongside traditional risk measures in future real-world studies on anticoagulation among patients with AF.
Delaying the inevitable: Are disease modifying drugs for progressive MS worthwhile?
2021, Multiple Sclerosis and Related DisordersPostponement of Death by Pharmacological Heart Failure Treatment: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials
2020, American Journal of MedicineCitation Excerpt :In comparison, all heart failure medications that are class I recommended postponed all-cause mortality with about 40 days, during just 3 years of trial duration. Outcome postponement has previously been appraised as a useful tool for communicating the effect of treatment to patients, and it has shown improved perception among patients, as compared with traditional effect measures (ie, RR, ARR, and NNT).3,4 Because our results emphasize which of the heart failure medications are associated with the largest improvements in prognosis, presenting the benefits of evidence-based, guideline-recommended heart failure therapy using these measures may help ensure improved adherence in daily clinical practice.
Treatment effect expressed as the novel Delay of Event measure is associated with high willingness to initiate preventive treatment − A randomized survey experiment comparing effect measures
2016, Patient Education and CounselingCitation Excerpt :The phrasings and methods are similar to other studies investing different ways of explaining medication benefit [31]. NNT was not included since previous research has found that the NNT measures are ineffective for communicating treatment benefits [14,15]. Information about willingness to initiate treatment was assessed using the question: “If you were in the same situation as the person in this case would you initiate treatment?”
A review of the use of the number needed to treat to evaluate the efficacy of analgesics
2015, Journal of PainCitation Excerpt :A study showed that a large majority of people would accept using the hypothetical treatment presented to them regardless of its NNT, and that those who declined using the medication misinterpreted the NNT.28 In another study, laypersons presented with the benefit of a hypothetical osteoporosis intervention and offered the therapy were sensitive to the magnitude of treatment benefit when it was presented in terms of postponement of hip fracture, but not in terms of NNT.7,20 A search for definitions of the NNT on the Internet shows that the NNT is commonly misinterpreted as the number of patients one needs to treat to get one responder.