The NNH is an important measure in evidence-based medicine and helps physicians decide whether it is prudent to proceed with a particular treatment which may expose the patient to harms while providing therapeutic benefits. If a clinical endpoint is devastating enough without the drug (e.g. death, heart attack), drugs with a low NNH may still be indicated in particular situations if the NNT is smaller than the NNH.[dubious – discuss] However, there are several important problems with the NNH, involving bias and lack of reliable confidence intervals, as well as difficulties in excluding the possibility of no difference between two treatments or groups.3
Porta, Miquel; Greenland, Sander; Hernán, Miguel; Silva, Isabel dos Santos; Last, John M. (2014). Dictionary of Epidemiology - Oxford Reference. doi:10.1093/acref/9780199976720.001.0001. ISBN 9780199976720. 9780199976720 ↩
Schünemann, Holger J (2023). "Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions". cochrane.org. Cochrane Training. Retrieved 3 October 2023. [NNH] can easily[citation needed] be read to imply the number of people who will experience a harmful outcome if given the intervention ... The preferred alternative is to use phrases such as 'number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome' (NNTB) and 'number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome' (NNTH) to indicate direction of effect. https://training.cochrane.org/handbook/current/chapter-15 ↩
Hutton JL (2010). "Misleading Statistics: The Problems Surrounding Number Needed to Treat and Number Needed to Harm". Pharm Med. 24 (3): 145–9. doi:10.1007/BF03256810. S2CID 39801240. /wiki/Jane_Hutton ↩