Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Clinical Trial
. 2003 Nov;18(11):884-92.
doi: 10.1046/j.1525-1497.2003.21102.x.

A randomized comparison of patients' understanding of number needed to treat and other common risk reduction formats

Stacey L Sheridan  1 , Michael P Pignone, Carmen L Lewis
Affiliations
Clinical Trial

A randomized comparison of patients' understanding of number needed to treat and other common risk reduction formats

Stacey L Sheridan et al. J Gen Intern Med. 2003 Nov.

Abstract

Background: Commentators have suggested that patients may understand quantitative information about treatment benefits better when they are presented as numbers needed to treat (NNT) rather than as absolute or relative risk reductions.

Objective: To determine whether NNT helps patients interpret treatment benefits better than absolute risk reduction (ARR), relative risk reduction (RRR), or a combination of all three of these risk reduction presentations (COMBO).

Design: Randomized cross-sectional survey.

Setting: University internal medicine clinic.

Patients: Three hundred fifty-seven men and women, ages 50 to 80, who presented for health care.

Interventions: Subjects were given written information about the baseline risk of a hypothetical "disease Y" and were asked (1) to compare the benefits of two drug treatments for disease Y, stating which provided more benefit; and (2) to calculate the effect of one of those drug treatments on a given baseline risk of disease. Risk information was presented to each subject in one of four randomly allocated risk formats: NNT, ARR, RRR, or COMBO.

Main results: When asked to state which of two treatments provided more benefit, subjects who received the RRR format responded correctly most often (60% correct vs 43% for COMBO, 42% for ARR, and 30% for NNT, P =.001). Most subjects were unable to calculate the effect of drug treatment on the given baseline risk of disease, although subjects receiving the RRR and ARR formats responded correctly more often (21% and 17% compared to 7% for COMBO and 6% for NNT, P =.004).

Conclusion: Patients are best able to interpret the benefits of treatment when they are presented in an RRR format with a given baseline risk of disease. ARR also is easily interpreted. NNT is often misinterpreted by patients and should not be used alone to communicate risk to patients.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Presentation of treatment benefits and assessment of subject ability to correctly interpret them.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Assessment of numeracy.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Patient accrual.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Risk reduction format and the ability to correctly interpret treatment benefits.
Figure 5
Figure 5
Numeracy and the ability to correctly interpret treatment benefits.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Comment in

  • Why does framing influence judgment?
    Gigerenzer G. Gigerenzer G. J Gen Intern Med. 2003 Nov;18(11):960-1. doi: 10.1046/j.1525-1497.2003.30901.x. J Gen Intern Med. 2003. PMID: 14687283 Free PMC article. No abstract available.

References

    1. Institute of Medicine (US). Envisioning the National Health Care Quality Report. Washington, DC: The Institute; 2001.
    1. Rajkumar S, Sampathkumar P, Gustafson A. Number needed to treat is a simple measure of treatment efficacy for clinicians. J Gen Intern Med. 1996;11:357–9. - PubMed
    1. Schwartz LM, Woloshin S, Black WC, Welch HG. The role of numeracy in understanding the benefit of screening mammography. Ann Intern Med. 1997;127:966–72. - PubMed
    1. Laupacis A, Sackett D, Roberts R. An assessment of clinically useful measures of the consequences of treatment. N Engl J Med. 1988;318:1728–33. - PubMed
    1. Sackett D. Inference and decision at the bedside. J Clin Epidemiol. 1989;42:309–16. - PubMed

Publication types