physicians-2017-scientifictracks-abstracts

11 / 20

Volume 7, Issue 4 (Suppl) J Nov Physiother
ISSN: 2165-7025 JNP, an open access journal Physicians 2017
July 24-26, 2017
Page 36
Notes:
conferenceseries.com
July 24-26, 2017 Melbourne, Australia
World Physiotherapists &
Physicians Summit
The number needed to treat statistic may improve the understanding of likelihood to benefit or be
harmed as a result of treatment options?
Statement of the Problem: Physiotherapists utilize evidence-based physiotherapy/medicine principles routinely and hence
need to interpret literature and research evidence being outcomes reported in systematic reviews and randomized controlled
trials quickly and efficiently. Subsequent decision-making involves using this evidence in conjunction with their professional
expertise and experience as it relates to individual patients. Various statistics and summary measures are reported in the
literature and outcomes may be continuous or dichotomous in nature and hence reported statistics vary. Commonly calculated
statistics include the relative risk, relative risk reduction and absolute risk reduction.The number needed to treat [NNT] statistic
is another option that may aide interpretation and this describes the number who need to be treated with the intervention for
one to improve whom would not have improved otherwise with control treatment. While reported to varying degrees in the
scientific literature more recently it can be efficiently and reliably calculated using one of many downloadable spreadsheets.
Methodology: The Australian Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) was searched in order to locate a selection of
physiotherapy research articles that reported various dichotomous outcomes that could be converted to the NNT statistic for
the purpose of this analysis.
Findings: The NNT statistic for nine studies with a PEDro score6 was calculated using the Internet-based downloadable
spreadsheet on the PEDro website. For six studies, the NNT point estimates ranged from 2 to 4 (95% confidence interval 1-10).
One study had a NNT of 8, while two other studies produced number needed to harm values.
Conclusion & Significance: The NNT can be calculated quickly and efficiently using Internet-based calculators and/or other
decision-making tools, and may be an alternative that provides readily interpretable information to assist in conveying the
likely benefits (and/or risks) of treatment to patients.
Biography
Deborah Hilton has qualifications of BPhty and an MPH. Her dissertation was an analysis of the Australian Diabetes Screening Study, and this was published in
the Medical Journal of Australia.
Deborah Hilton
Deborah Hilton Statistics Online, Australia
Deborah Hilton, J Nov Physiother 2017, 7:4 (Suppl)
DOI: 10.4172/2165-7025-C1-014