Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 302

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 10 of the 10 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Numbers needed to treat derived from meta-analyses---sometimes informative, usually misleading

Open access
Smeeth, L., Haines, A., Ebrahim, S.·1999·BMJ
DOI 10.1136/bmj.318.7197.1548
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The number needed to treat—the number of patients who must be treated to prevent one adverse outcome—is a widely used measure. 1 2 It is increasingly being calculated by pooling absolute risk differences in trials included in meta-analyses. 3 4 This option is available in statistical software and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews . 5 6 In this paper, we examine pooled numbers needed to treat derived from trials and meta-analyses of interventions to prevent cardiovascular disease. We show that a pooled number needed to treat may be misleading because of variation in the event rates in trials, differences in the outcomes considered, effects of secular trends on disease risk, and differences in clinical setting. The number needed to treat should be derived by applying the relative risk reductions from treatment which have been estimated by trials or meta-analysis to relevant baseline risks for different types of patients. This provides a range of possible numbers needed to treat in different patient groups. ### Summary points Numbers needed to treat are often used to summarise treatment effects in a clinically relevant way They are derived from the baseline risk without treatment and the reduction in risk achieved with treatment Numbers needed to treat are sensitive to factors that change the baseline risk such as the outcome considered, patients' characteristics, secular trends in incidence and case fatality, and the clinical setting Pooled numbers needed to treat derived from meta-analyses can be seriously misleading because the baseline risk often varies appreciably between the trials Applying the pooled relative risk reductions calculated from meta-analyses or individual trials to the baseline risk relevant to specific patient group produces a useful number needed to treat The interventions selected for study were use of statins for lowering cholesterol concentrations in primary and secondary prevention of coronary heart disease.7 …

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1136/bmj.318.7197.1548

Cites

10 of 10 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 10 references

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Smeeth, L., Haines, A., & Ebrahim, S.
Venue
BMJ
Publisher
BMJ
Published
1999-06-05
Volume
318
Issue
7197
Pages
1548-1551
ISSN
  • 0007-1447 (ISSN-L)
  • 0959-8138
  • 1468-5833
DOI
10.1136/bmj.318.7197.1548
OpenAlex
W2026077821
Cited by
302
References
10
FWCI
32.86
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.