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.
Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'.
Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'.
Statement of Competing Interests


  • A rapid response is a moderated but not peer reviewed online response to a published article in a BMJ journal; it will not receive a DOI and will not be indexed unless it is also republished as a Letter, Correspondence or as other content. Find out more about rapid responses.
  • We intend to post all responses which are approved by the Editor, within 14 days (BMJ Journals) or 24 hours (The BMJ), however timeframes cannot be guaranteed. Responses must comply with our requirements and should contribute substantially to the topic, but it is at our absolute discretion whether we publish a response, and we reserve the right to edit or remove responses before and after publication and also republish some or all in other BMJ publications, including third party local editions in other countries and languages
  • Our requirements are stated in our rapid response terms and conditions and must be read. These include ensuring that: i) you do not include any illustrative content including tables and graphs, ii) you do not include any information that includes specifics about any patients,iii) you do not include any original data, unless it has already been published in a peer reviewed journal and you have included a reference, iv) your response is lawful, not defamatory, original and accurate, v) you declare any competing interests, vi) you understand that your name and other personal details set out in our rapid response terms and conditions will be published with any responses we publish and vii) you understand that once a response is published, we may continue to publish your response and/or edit or remove it in the future.
  • By submitting this rapid response you are agreeing to our terms and conditions for rapid responses and understand that your personal data will be processed in accordance with those terms and our privacy notice.
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.