ライフサイエンスコーパス: number needed to treat

1 eterogeneity, and calculated a time-specific number needed to treat.

2 ction, (3) absolute survival benefit, or (4) number needed to treat.

3 ive risks (RRs), risk differences (RDs), and numbers needed to treat.

4 ponse syndrome from 92% to 27% (P < 0.0001) (number needed to treat = 1.5), maximal plasma interleuki

5 for 7 to achieve sustained unresponsiveness (number needed to treat, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.06-1.59).

6 olute difference, 10.0%; 95% CI, 1.1%-18.7%; number needed to treat = 10).

7 sual (risk ratio: 0.811; 95% CI=0.685-0.961; number needed to treat=10) was found.

8 interval, 0.62-0.90; P=0.002 versus group 3; number needed to treat=10), and 41.9% in group 3 (VKA+DA

9 were 35.8% and 25.8%, respectively (P=0.081; number needed to treat=10.0), and rates of reduction >/=

10 10.1% vs 11.0%; OR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.83-0.99; number needed to treat, 107).

11 705 individuals, IRR 0.65, 95% CI 0.55-0.78; number needed to treat 11.36), although no effect was fo

12 dence interval [CI] 0.18 to 0.59; p < 0.001; number needed to treat: 11).

13 ompared with controls (555/1590 vs 741/1714, number needed to treat = 12; relative risk [RR], 0.75; 9

14 treatments (54% compared with 46% recovered; number needed to treat=12.5, small effect).

15 stroke of any etiology (10.2% versus 18.8%; number needed to treat=12; HR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.38-0.95;

16 risk [RR] 0.24; 95% CI: 0.07 - 0.77; P=0.02; number needed to treat = 13) by prophylactic ureteric st

17 k, 0.43; 95% confidence interval, 0.19-0.98; number needed to treat, 13.3); however, this outcome bec

18 difference, -0.07; 95% CI, -0.10 to -0.05], [number needed to treat, 13; 95% CI, 10.3 to 19.1]) in tr

19 7.6% for ischemic stroke (8.7% versus 16.3%; number needed to treat=13; HR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.31-0.86;

20 rval, 0.26-0.90; P=0.019; adjusted RR=0.76%; number needed to treat=132) and ischemic stroke (0.63% v

21 rval, 0.24-0.87; P=0.014; adjusted RR=0.75%; number needed to treat=134) compared with enoxaparin.

22 interval, 0.66-0.94; P=0.008 versus group 3; number needed to treat=15), 31.9% in group 2 (hazard rat

23 to -0.29; relative risk 0.61, 0.39 to 0.83; number needed to treat 154, 99 to 345).

24 95% confidence interval, 0.68-0.87; P<0.001; number needed to treat, 16.7), and major bleeding (relat

25 t (14.2% vs 20.6%; risk ratio=0.72; p<0.001; number needed to treat=16, with survival improved in pul

26 ratio 0.80 [0.72; 0.89], p for effect <.001, number needed to treat = 17 with 45 studies included).

27 l arm; risk ratio=0.73 [0.66-0.81]; p<0.001; number needed to treat=19 with 7,365 patients included)

28 rence, 34.00; 95% CI, 16.00-51.00; P < .001; number needed to treat = 2.94) had clinically significan

29 cebo-treated participants (16.0%) (P < .001; number needed to treat, 2).

30 %) than ARC (7.1%) (chi21 = 14.90; P < .001; number needed to treat, 2).

31 95% confidence interval, 0.72-0.94; P=0.004; number needed to treat, 22.6), but had no effect on othe

32 rval, 0.30-0.94; P=0.026; adjusted RR=0.43%; number needed to treat=233) among patients treated with

33 rval, 0.32-0.96; P=0.032; adjusted RR=0.43%; number needed to treat=233) and ischemic strokes (0.48%

34 95% confidence interval, 0.85-0.98; P=0.02; number needed to treat, 24.7), platelet transfusion (rel

35 d a greater absolute risk reduction of 4.1% (number needed to treat: 25) due to their higher absolute

36 cations (95% confidence interval, 0.31-0.42; number needed to treat=250).

37 (relative risk, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.29 to 0.75; number needed to treat=26).

38 ale (52.5% vs 18.5%, respectively; P < .001; number needed to treat = 3).

39 cebo group had normal tympanometry findings (number needed to treat, 3.2; 95% CI, 2.0-10.5).

40 ared with 14% of those in the placebo group (number needed to treat=3).

41 ative care (84% compared with 53% recovered; number needed to treat=3.22, medium to large effect), wh

42 ttempt (hazard ratio=0.38, 95% CI=0.16-0.87, number needed to treat=3.88), suggesting that soldiers i

43 21 patients vs 194 [19.3%] of 1006; p=0.043; number needed to treat 30).

44 risk reduction, 33 per 1000 [95% CI, 10-52]; number needed to treat = 31).

45 d subsequent cardiovascular events post-PCI (number needed to treat, 33-53) and is the current standa

46 (5.3% vs 8.3%; risk ratio=0.64 [0.46-0.90]; number needed to treat=34, with survival improved in pos

47 s (37.84% vs 13.51%; chi(2) = 5.74; P = .02; number needed to treat = 4.11) (secondary outcome).

48 nt (56.8% vs 28.2%; chi21 = 13.09, P < .001; number needed to treat, 4), greater reductions in sympto

49 n HRS-D score from baseline (50.0% vs 29.6%; number needed to treat, 4.9 [95% CI, 3.2-10.4]) than usu

50 aripiprazole than with placebo (53% vs 28%; number needed to treat, 4; OR, 4.11 [95% CI, 1.83-9.20])

51 0.56; 95% confidence interval, 0.30 to 0.72; number needed to treat, 4; P<0.001).

52 were clonidine (22 studies; risk ratio: 1.6, numbers needed to treat: 4), meperidine (16; 2.2, 2), tr

53 nce in response rates was relatively robust (number needed to treat=4).

54 m group (odds ratio=2.85, 95% CI=1.14, 7.15; number needed to treat=4.0).

55 ; absolute difference, +2.23% [1.55%-2.92%]; number needed to treat, 43) and better functional outcom

56 active protein level higher than the median (number needed to treat, 43; P=0.02).

57 ute rate reduction, 2.2% [95% CI, 1.0%-3.5%; number needed to treat = 45]).

58 ative risk 0.49; 95% CI 0.24-0.65; p=0.0009; number needed to treat 5).

59 0.42; 95% confidence interval: 0.22 to 0.81; number needed to treat = 5).

60 ference, 18.00; 95% CI, 1.00-34.00; P = .03; number needed to treat = 5.56) and CONTROL (25 [48%]) (d

61 tion (risk ratio: 0.674; 95% CI=0.482-0.943; number needed to treat=5).

62 66% compared with 49% recovered over 1 year; number needed to treat=5.88, small to medium effect).

63 ; absolute difference, +1.99% [0.78%-3.22%]; number needed to treat, 50).

64 ative care (64% compared with 62% recovered; number needed to treat=50, small effect).

65 depressed at intake, CBP was superior to UC (number needed to treat, 6), whereas when parents were ac

66 of 0.35 (95% confidence interval, 0.14-0.83; number needed to treat, 6.3).

67 oup and 32.5% in the placebo group (P=0.012; number needed to treat=6.8).

68 ic nonunion rates by 35% (95% CI 19% to 47%; number needed to treat = 7; p < 0.01).

69 eduction in cardiovascular events (P = 0.04; number-needed-to-treat = 70).

70 (8.0% vs 9.4%; OR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.70-0.94; number needed to treat, 72).

71 s ratio, 0.77 [95% CI, 0.65-0.91]; P = .002; number needed to treat, 77).

72 = 0.53; odds ratio, 1.95; 95% CI, 1.52-2.50; number needed to treat, 8).

73 7; P=0.039; absolute risk reduction=0.13 and number needed to treat=8 to prevent the MACCE at 6 years

74 1 (95% confidence interval [CI]=0.671-0.909; number needed to treat=8), according to the random-effec

75 intervention (odds ratio=0.59, CI=0.43-0.81; number needed to treat=8).

76 a 10-year absolute risk reduction of 12.7% (number needed to treat=8).

77 were 67.4% and 55.6%, respectively (P=0.05; number needed to treat=8.5).

78 ooled rate difference, 12% [95% CI, 5%-18%]; number needed to treat, 9 [95% CI, 6-20]), while increas

79 sk [RR], 1.71 [95% CI, 1.14-2.56], P = .009; number needed to treat, 9.4 [95% CI, 5.4-35.5]).

80 level that were both lower than the median (number needed to treat, 983; P=0.80).

81 Number-needed-to-treat analyses suggest that as few as t

82 Multivariable regressions and number-needed-to-treat analyses were used.

83 The number needed-to-treat analysis with the plus CBT vs med

84 sociated 95% confidence intervals as well as numbers needed to treat and 95% credible intervals for t

85 n of transfusion-related adverse events, the number needed to treat, and cost to avoid one transfusio

86 olysis per 10,000 person-years of treatment, number needed to treat, and relative risk of rhabdomyoly

87 te the risks of treatment, underestimate the number needed to treat, and yield a smaller P value.

88 .20 [95% CI, 1.51-3.22]; P < .001), with the number needed to treat at 2.56.

89 The number needed to treat at higher-volume hospitals to avo

90 anding of probabilistic information, whereas numbers needed to treat can lessen their understanding.

91 Furthermore, 10-year number-needed-to-treat estimates were consistently low a

92 data from median 7.6-year follow-up, 5-year number-needed-to-treat estimations were calculated by ap

93 more statin users than the status quo, at a number needed to treat for 10 years per quality-adjusted

94 eatment Panel III guideline, with a marginal number needed to treat for 10 years per quality-adjusted

95 than the ACC/AHA guideline, with a marginal number needed to treat for 10 years per quality-adjusted

96 of a successful outcome, with an associated number needed to treat for benefit at 4 weeks of 1.9 (CI

97 03 to 0.12] in 4.9 years of treatment) and a number needed to treat for benefit of 13 to 14.

98 The number needed to treat for benefit to prevent one case o

99 gardless of the level of C-reactive protein (number needed to treat for five years to prevent 1 event

100 years [CI, 1.4 to 6.4 per 1000 woman-years]; number needed to treat for harm, 256 [CI, 157 to 692]).

101 The number needed to treat for preventing 1 ischemic stroke

102 The number needed to treat for response and remission was ap

103 The number needed to treat for response was approximately si

104 The number needed to treat for successful treatment (>/=50 p

105 The number needed to treat for the adjusted outcome survival

106 Estimated 10-year number-needed-to-treat for a SBP goal of 120mmHg varied

107 We estimated 10-year number-needed-to-treat for an intensive SBP goal of 120

108 re incremental cost-effectiveness ratios and numbers needed to treat for 10 years per quality-adjuste

109 Similarly, SDF's highest numbers needed to treat for caries arrest and caries pre

110 For fluoride varnish, the lowest numbers needed to treat for caries arrest and prevention

111 e event rates, absolute risk reductions, and numbers needed to treat for individual risk factors for

112 The risk ratio (RR), the number-needed-to-treat/harm (NNT/NNH), 95% CIs and stand

113 le fraction, leading to determination of the number needed to treat in order to prevent incident depr

114 umber of patients are outweighed by the high numbers needed to treat in terms of avoided re-admission

115 zed by risk ratio (RR), risk difference, and number-needed-to-treat methods.

116 to attenuate the mortality benefit of X-PCI [number needed to treat (NNT) 23 for PCI-related delay >6

117 SI [OR = 0.51; 95% CI: 0.33-0.77; P = 0.001; number needed to treat (NNT) = 21; I = 75%].

118 nd CVD event rates and calculated the 5-year number needed to treat (NNT) after stratification based

119 The number needed to treat (NNT) analysis indicated that 562

120 d the frequency of explicit reporting of the number needed to treat (NNT) and the absolute risk reduc

121 The number needed to treat (NNT) at higher-volume providers

122 We calculated 5-year number needed to treat (NNT) by applying the benefit rec

123 We used number needed to treat (NNT) for 50% pain relief as a pr

124 were used to compute relative risks and the number needed to treat (NNT) for first variceal bleed, b

125 compared to 5% treated with vehicle, and the number needed to treat (NNT) for one patient to have the

126 (37.1% [22.5% to 51.7%]), corresponding to a number needed to treat (NNT) of 10 (95% CI, 7 to 15), 6

127 the highest predicted benefit subgroup had a number needed to treat (NNT) of 24 to prevent 1 CVD even

128 number needed to screen (NNS) of 1,410 and a number needed to treat (NNT) of 48 to prevent one prosta

129 The number needed to treat (NNT) to benefit was 41 women/bab

130 ty lipoprotein (LDL-C) used to determine the number needed to treat (NNT) to prevent 1 ASCVD event ov

131 ttributable fraction [PAF]) and for whom the number needed to treat (NNT) to prevent infection is low

132 rcentage of infections averted (PIA) and the number needed to treat (NNT) under behavioral indication

133 From the pooled risk difference, the number needed to treat (NNT) was 15 (95% CI, 8-53), or e

134 The number needed to treat (NNT) was 19 for OFC and nine for

135 The number needed to treat (NNT) was calculated by taking th

136 The number needed to treat (NNT) with FB-CBT vs FB-RT was es

137 The number needed to treat (NNT) with restrictive strategies

138 imates of absolute risk reductions (ARR) and numbers needed to treat (NNT) for 5-HT(3) antagonists, a

139 We estimated age-specific numbers needed to treat (NNT) to prevent upper gastroint

140 calculated using random-effects model, with numbers-needed-to-treat (NNT) calculations where appropr

141 ratio [RR] 0.62, 95% CI 0.43-0.91, estimated number needed to treat [NNT 193) as was delayed prescrip

142 0.0001; responder rate, 70% CBT vs. 37% EDU; number needed to treat [NNT ], 3.1).

143 rd catheters (-2.15%, 95% CI -4.09 to -0.20; number needed to treat [NNT] 47, 95% CI 25-500) and anti

144 dds ratio [OR] 2.0 [95% CI 1.1-3.7], p=0.03; number needed to treat [NNT] 6.6 [95% CI 3.5-81.8]).

145 54-0.79) in non-fatal myocardial infarction (number needed to treat [NNT] 63) and decrease (OR 0.36,

146 .63, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.53-0.74, number needed to treat [NNT] = 4) and serious liver-rela

147 061] vs 3.89% [41/1054] with anticoagulants; number needed to treat [NNT] = 59) and greater risks of

148 hazard ratio [HR], 1.33; 95% CI, 1.06-1.68; number needed to treat [NNT], 10; 95% CI, 5-72).

149 io [RR], 0.33; 95% CI, 0.23 to 0.47; I2, 0%; number needed to treat [NNT], 11), and mortality (RR, 0.

150 nts (relative risk, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.81-0.98; number needed to treat [NNT], 11; 95% CI, 6-54).

151 50-0.82; treatment-control difference, 6.5%; number needed to treat [NNT], 15), but there was no sign

152 ratio [RR], 4.0 [95% CI, 1.2-12.5]; P = .01; number needed to treat [NNT], 2.86).

153 isk [RR], 1.51; 95% CI, 1.16-1.95; P = .002; number needed to treat [NNT], 3.6) suggested the efficac

154 n (risk ratio [RR], 0.59; 95% CI, 0.48-0.72; number needed to treat [NNT], 6; 95% CI, 3-9).

155 year (RR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.56-0.69; P < .001; number needed to treat [NNT], 9) and 2 years (RR, 0.84;

156 ger DAPT (HR 0.82, 95% CI 0.69-0.98; p=0.02; number needed to treat [NNT]=325), with no significant h

157 absolute risk reduction [ARR] 2.6%, 1.5-3.7; numbers needed to treat [NNT] 39, 95% CI 27-69), deaths

158 Adjusted numbers needed to treat (NNTs; 95% confidence interval)

159 ion was 9.8% (95% CI, 8.2% to 18.9%), with a number needed to treat of 11 (95% CI, 6-122).

160 ion of 6.0% and a hazard ratio of 0.85, with number needed to treat of 16 patients.

161 ir traditional risk status (estimated 5-year number needed to treat of 173 for individuals <10% FRS a

162 t from decompressive hemicraniectomy, with a number needed to treat of 2 for survival.

163 19% [n=8], 8.17, 2.88-23.16, p<0.0001), with number needed to treat of 2.17 (95% CI 1.60-3.97).

164 nfidence interval [CI], .54-.80), yielding a number needed to treat of 20.

165 ad unfavorable estimations (estimated 5-year number needed to treat of 2036 for individuals <10% FRS

166 composite cardiovascular outcome revealed a number needed to treat of 28.9 to prevent 1 event over 9

167 k reduction (P<0.001 each), translating to a number needed to treat of 31 and 48.

168 had an incident CVD rate of 5.7%, yielding a number needed to treat of 39 to 58.

169 a for remission at study end, resulting in a number needed to treat of 4.

170 Absolute risk reduction was 32.3%, with a number needed to treat of 4.0 (95% CI, 2.6-6.6).

171 tive risk, 1.9 [95% CI, 1.4 to 2.7]), with a number needed to treat of 4.1 (95% CI, 3.0 to 6.4) for a

172 %) vs 33.28% (95% CI, 28.62%-37.93%), with a number needed to treat of 5.27 (95% CI, 4.18-7.13) for r

173 solute risk reduction was 1.9% with a 3-year number needed to treat of 53.

174 nfidence interval, 0.70-0.90; P<0.001) and a number needed to treat of 54.

175 relative risk reduction of 0.75 (75%) and a number needed to treat of 6.5 patients were calculated t

176 es (1.5% vs. 1.1%, with corresponding 3-year number needed to treat of 67 vs. 91).

177 ezetimibe/simvastatin, thus translating to a number-needed-to-treat of 16.

178 SCVD risk <15% and SBP <160mmHg (eg, 10-year number-needed-to-treat of 99 for CAC=0 and 24 for CAC>10

179 mission (beta = 1.33; df = 1; P = .02), with numbers needed to treat of 2.4 (95% CI, 1.6 to 5.8) and

180 calculated pooled risk benefits, and pooled numbers needed to treat of the five most frequently stud

181 bsolute risk reductions and/or increases and numbers needed to treat or harm were calculated.

182 The corresponding numbers needed to treat over 10 years were 21 (range, 9-

183 apy was 498 for new-onset diabetes while the number needed to treat per year for intensive-dose stati

184 The prevalence-adjusted pathogen-specific number needed to treat (PNNT) with appropriate antimicro

185 The presentation of numbers needed to treat reduced understanding.

186 The estimated number needed to treat suggested that switching eight pa

187 arms (treatment rate) of each strategy using numbers-needed-to-treat thresholds-the maximum number of

188 The number needed to treat to achieve a negative weekly urin

189 The number needed to treat to achieve one additional patient

190 95% CI, 1.18-11.37]; P = .02), with 2.84 the number needed to treat to achieve successful retention i

191 The number needed to treat to avoid 1 case of AKI was 6 (95%

192 The number needed to treat to avoid 1 case of angiographic I

193 bleeding in patients age > or =75 years, the number needed to treat to avoid 1 major bleeding event u

194 idence interval, 0.60-0.89]; P=0.002) with a number needed to treat to avoid 1 major cardiovascular e

195 The number needed to treat to avoid 1 new case of MDD was 5.

196 Per year of therapy, the number needed to treat to observe 1 case of rhabdomyolys

197 The number needed to treat to prevent 1 additional PE with I

198 adial combination group was 138, whereas the number needed to treat to prevent 1 bleeding event in hi

199 .84; 95% confidence interval, 0.75-0.94).The number needed to treat to prevent 1 bleeding event with

200 azard ratios were applied to this group, the number needed to treat to prevent 1 CVD event would be e

201 confidence interval [CI], 0.37-0.71; P<.001; number needed to treat to prevent 1 event [NNT], 48).

202 Based on these associations, the number needed to treat to prevent 1 SSI in MRSA-colonize

203 Based on this adjusted OR, the number needed to treat to prevent a postoperative death

204 efit and artificially increases the apparent number needed to treat to prevent an event.

205 study (38 female and 56 male; 92 white), the number needed to treat to prevent depression after TBI a

206 61; relative risk 0.69, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.78; number needed to treat to prevent one case of necrotisin

207 The number needed to treat to prevent one case of type 2 dia

208 lting in a roughly threefold decrease in the number needed to treat to prevent one coronary heart dis

209 n mortality after radical prostatectomy; the number needed to treat to prevent one death continued to

210 The number needed to treat to prevent one death was 8.

211 ention versus usual care, and the additional number needed to treat to prevent one PC death at 10 yea

212 rval [CI], 0.35 to 0.86; P=0.01), yielding a number needed to treat to prevent one recurrent cellulit

213 cally, in the primary prevention trials, the number needed to treat to prevent one such event in 10 y

214 The number needed to treat to reduce 1 primary end point ove

215 The number needed to treat to seroprotect 1 patient was <10.

216 The number needed to treat to show superiority of nurse-deli

217 10 nonrenal deaths were prevented, with the number-needed-to-treat to avoid one terminal event of on

218 aphic and biological criteria-the individual Numbers Needed to Treat to obtain a benefit, such as a l

219 atients with HFrEF in the United States, and numbers needed to treat to overt death were obtained fro

220 Numbers needed to treat to prevent one death from prosta

221 r of patients needed to undergo surgery (ie, number needed to treat) to prevent one ipsilateral strok

222 rate (risk ratio: 1.52, 95% CI=1.29 to 1.78; number-needed-to-treat-to-benefit: 5, 95% CI=4 to 7).

223 loss less, and systemic complications fewer (numbers needed to treat, two to 12) with endovascular re

224 Ordinal numbers needed to treat values were derived by populatin

225 fied a group of 11.7% whose predicted 5-year number needed to treat was </=25 and a group of 41.9% wh

226 The number needed to treat was 12.

227 The number needed to treat was 2.5, which confirmed the effe

228 The 1-year number needed to treat was 200 for MACE and 239 for all-

229 at 12 months for anxiety symptoms), and the number needed to treat was 3.9 at 12 months.

230 The number needed to treat was 320 patients to prevent 1 cas

231 The number needed to treat was 4 on the basis of intent-to-t

232 The number needed to treat was 4.

233 The number needed to treat was 4.

234 The number needed to treat was 5,246 to avoid one transfusio

235 The number needed to treat was 5.7.

236 % confidence interval, 0.143-0.8565) and the number needed to treat was 7.

237 d with the intervention, one life was saved (number needed to treat was 7.4, 95% CI 4.2 to 35.5).

238 s the plus instructions in CBT strategy, the number needed to treat was also estimated as 3; for the

239 The number needed to treat was approximately 830 adults gain

240 Number needed to treat was calculated as the reciprocal

241 ons in CBT vs medication management only the number needed to treat was estimated as 25.

242 The number needed to treat was higher than the number needed

243 The number needed to treat was not influenced by baseline FE

244 Using the number needed to treat, we computed effect sizes to anal

245 lta minus observed delta), and the predicted number needed to treat were calculated.

246 Of studies reporting myocardial ischemia, numbers needed to treat were modest (2.5-6.7).

247 Similarly modest numbers needed to treat were observed in studies reporti

248 The number needed to treat with a sling to prevent one case

249 The number needed to treat with ACDs to prevent 1 major blee

250 The number needed to treat with an ICD for 2 years to save 1

251 For the entire cohort, the number needed to treat with appropriate antimicrobial th

252 The number needed to treat with bivalirudin alone to avoid 1

253 Based on 5-year event rates, the number needed to treat with CABG versus PCI to prevent 1

254 The number needed to treat with endovascular thrombectomy to

255 The number needed to treat with rofecoxib instead of naproxe

256 Calculation of the number needed to treat with statins to prevent one CVD e

257 ong children with atopic predisposition, the number-needed-to-treat with BCG to prevent one case of a

258 An additional measure, the number needed to treat, with its 95% confidence interval

259 response to statins and provide knowledge of number needed to treat would greatly improve individual

260 on the basis of the power calculations, the number needed to treat would have been 12.7 (5.0-33.3) p