Talk:Number needed to harm

Statistics C‑class Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Statistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of statistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.StatisticsWikipedia:WikiProject StatisticsTemplate:WikiProject StatisticsStatistics articles
C	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Medicine Mid‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Pharmacology Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pharmacology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pharmacology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PharmacologyWikipedia:WikiProject PharmacologyTemplate:WikiProject Pharmacologypharmacology articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Attributable risk[edit]

let me amend my earlier comment today. I think the error is in using the term 'attributable risk' to calculate the NNH/NNT value. It should be the inverse of the absolute risk reduction. The example in this article does the calculation correctly but confuses AR with ARR. Patmalone51 (talk) 18:19, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is actually the inverse of the absolute risk increase. Psarka (talk) 23:37, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Error in calculation?[edit]

This appears to have an error in the example of working out attributable risk. I believe it's Risk A minus Risk B divided by Risk A. the article leaves out that last part. This results in a major error in calculating the ivnerse of the AR to get to the NNH. Patmalone51 (talk) 16:57, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is now correct. Psarka (talk) 23:37, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is an error in the example cells. For example, 75 + 100 != 115. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.99.225.23 (talk) 14:27, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NNT vs NNH?[edit]

Why does this stub switch suddenly to talking about two treatments? I mean, i'm going to figure this out in the next few days one way or another and will then be able to fix it... providing i don't totally forget to do it. Bakerstmd 05:09, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is no longer a stub, and it no longer switches. Psarka (talk) 23:38, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

"2." None of these URLs are extant (404 Errors). E Hassen (talk) 19:51, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced that by a proper reference. Psarka (talk) 23:39, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Worked example[edit]

Worked example - where is it coming from? Any reference? I believe we either have to remove everything related to the follow-up period, or explain how it is relevant and how it can be used. In the absence of the model of the disease the follow-up period numbers are misleading. [original question was not signed]

The worked example explains - though in a rather mathematical way - how the relevant numbers are found. The disease model is not really relevant, but here an example of a cohort study (for more information, please see the article about it on WP) is given, which means (in short terms) that the same individuals are repetitively examined over a period of time and any changes noted. From the differences between the groups (one exposed to an influence, like smoking, versus the other unexposed group, like non-smokers) these numbers are derived.

Aim is to give an estimate how the reduction of or the exposure to an influence (e.g. smoking) would benefit or harm a population. T.pienn (talk) 14:05, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The example was way overkill, replaced it by a simpler standard table. Psarka (talk) 23:40, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request of examples[edit]

Please give examples of actual medicines, that have very high NNTH numbers compared to NNT = Number needed to treat 128.214.78.170 (talk) 14:54, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the general concept of NNT/NNH, as are the numbers in the example. For your requested list of drugs, please do your own research in medical literature about this. T.pienn (talk) 13:53, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I second the request, and think that such an example would improve the article. Psarka (talk) 23:42, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]