Responses

Download PDFPDF
‘Theory on relativity’: why we need to be ‘absolute’ and regulate the reporting of injury risk outcome metrics in RCTs in sport and exercise medicine (Methods Matter series)
Compose Response

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Author Information
First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'.
Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'.
Your email address, e.g. higgs-boson@gmail.com
Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'.
Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'.
Statement of Competing Interests

PLEASE NOTE:

  • Responses are moderated before posting and publication is at the absolute discretion of BMJ, however they are not peer-reviewed
  • Once published, you will not have the right to remove or edit your response. Removal or editing of responses is at BMJ's absolute discretion
  • If patients could recognise themselves, or anyone else could recognise a patient from your description, please obtain the patient's written consent to publication and send them to the editorial office before submitting your response [Patient consent forms]
  • By submitting this response you are agreeing to our full [Response terms and requirements]
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Vertical Tabs

Other responses

Jump to comment:

  • Published on:
    Understanding NNTs

    Roe et al have written a useful article on the continuing misuse of relative risk, and the importance of understanding relative risk and absolute risk difference in injury risk outcomes in randomised controlled trials. In describing the Number Needed to Treat (NNT) they miss out an important word- the NNT is the number needed to treat to prevent one _extra_ adverse event, not to prevent a single adverse event. To see thus suppose the NNT was m. In their notation the risk in the intervention group is IG and the Control group is CG. The number of events expected in the intervention group if we treated m of them is mIG. To prevent one event we have mIG=1 and so we have to treat m=1/IG subjects to prevent one event. However we would expect mCG events in the control group. To prevent one _extra_ event in the intervention group we would require mCG-mIG =1 (assuming CG>IG) . Thus m=1/(CG-IG) which is the definition of the NNT. They could also, perhaps, have mentioned the problems in using the NNT, such as differing baselines leading to it being uninterpretable as described, for example by Stang, A., Poole, C., & Bender, R. (2010). Common problems related to the use of number needed to treat. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 63(8), 820–825

    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.