Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23532201›Full record

ReviewDer Urologe. Ausg. A2013

[Use and interpretation of the number needed to treat in urological practice].

L A Kluth, M Rink, S F Shariat, F K Chun, M Fisch, P Dahm

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Der Urologe. Ausg. A, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

L A KluthKlinik für Urologie, Universitätsklinikum Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Deutschland.
M Rink
S F Shariat
F K Chun
M Fisch
P Dahm

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The number needed to treat (NNT) is a useful way for clinicans to describe the benefit or harm of a treatment as well as the costs involved. When interpreting the NNT it is essential to use the NNT in a clinically equivalent and appropriate setting. When evaluating the consequences of a treatment clinicians should make sure that the patients being treated have the same risk profile asthe study patients. Differences in duration of follow-up and baseline risks can cause significant changes in the NNT; therefore, NNT should be evaluated in addition to relative risk differences and baseline risk to reduce any ambivalence in the assessment of a treatment. This review provides insights into the assessment and clinical use of NNT in the practice.

Indexed as

Data Interpretation, StatisticalRisk Reduction BehaviorGermanyHumansNumbers Needed To TreatOutcome Assessment, Health CarePrevalenceUrologic DiseasesUrology

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.