Stacey Sheridan|Michael Pignone|Carmen L. Lewis
A randomized comparison of patients’ understanding of number needed to treat and other common risk reduction formats
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill|University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill|University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
commentators suggested patients may understand quantitative information treatment benefits better presented numbers needed treat nnt rather absolute relative risk reductionsto determine whether nnt helps patients interpret treatment benefits better absolute risk reduction arr relative risk reduction rrr combination three risk reduction presentations comborandomized crosssectional surveyuniversity internal medicine clinicthree hundred fiftyseven men women ages 50 80 presented health caresubjects given written information baseline risk hypothetical disease asked 1 compare benefits two drug treatments disease stating provided benefit 2 calculate effect one drug treatments given baseline risk disease risk information presented subject one four randomly allocated risk formats nnt arr rrr combowhen asked state two treatments provided benefit subjects received rrr format responded correctly often 60 correct vs 43 combo 42 arr 30 nnt p 001 subjects unable calculate effect drug treatment given baseline risk disease although subjects receiving rrr arr formats responded correctly often 21 17 compared 7 combo 6 nnt p 004patients best able interpret benefits treatment presented rrr format given baseline risk disease arr also easily interpreted nnt often misinterpreted patients used alone communicate risk patients