Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Aristus

(66,316 posts)
5. Not from a medical research point of view.
Sat Aug 24, 2019, 02:21 PM
Aug 2019

That part about treating thirty-five patients in order to prevent one adverse cardiac event is what researchers call the 'number needed to treat'. And 1 in 35 is spectacularly good.

There's a converse, of course; the 'number needed to harm', the number of patients treated versus how many of them suffered a harmful event as a result. 1 in 35 is so bad that it should never even be considered for release to the market, and they usually suspend all testing after learning of a result like that. A number needed to harm that gets a medication to market is usually around 1 in 10,000.

Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Four-In-One Pill Prevents...»Reply #5