Cost-effectiveness analysis based on the number-needed-to-treat: common sense or non-sense?

摘要: This paper explores and critically discusses some of the methodological limitations using number-needed-to-treat (NNT) in economic evaluation. We argue that NNT may be a straightforward measure benefit when effect an intervention is immediate, but serious problems arise delay rather than avoidance adverse event. In this case, not robust or accurate effect, will vary considerably inconsistently over time. weakness naturally spill onto any CEA based on NNT. A literature review demonstrated CEAs were all published within last five years, studies suffered from important limitations. major imposed restrictions outcome measure, which can only strictly uni-dimensional non-generic. Using evaluations obtained at cost terms both shortcomings, reduced ability for such to serve as useful tool decision making processes. The use might better avoided. To every complicated question, there simple, straightforward, easy--and probably wrong answer (Occam's Sledgehammer).