Ultraprocessed Food and Cardiovascular Risk: Estimating the Number Needed to Harm in an Unfamiliar Situation
Andrade C
Indian journal of psychological medicine · 3 citations
Review labels
Neutral facts our review recorded about how this study was done. They describe method, never whether we like the result.
How it was studied
- Design
- Cohort study (classified by our AI screen)
- Studied in
- People
- Main outcome
- Clinical events such as disease or death
- Intake measured by
- Not stated
Who paid for it
- Funding
- Independent funding
Based on full-text disclosure statement.
Publication
- Published
- 2019-09-01 · Indian J Psychol Med · vol. 41 · issue 5 · pp. 501–502
- Publisher
- SAGE Publishing
- Cited
- 5 citations · more than 73% of similar papers · 0.6× the field average
- References
- 2 works
- Access
- Open access (free to publish) · CC-BY-NC-SA
- Research areas
- Consumer Attitudes and Food Labeling · Nutritional Studies and Diet · Obesity, Physical Activity, Diet
- Keywords
- Number needed to harm, Observational study, Harm, Statistic, Context (archaeology), Psychology, Randomized controlled trial, Medicine, Social psychology, Number needed to treat, Relative risk, Confidence interval, Statistics, Internal medicine, Mathematics, History
1 author
From IN
- Chittaranjan Andrade · correspondingNational Institute of Mental Health and Neurosciences
Abstract
The Number Needed to Harm (NNH) statistic is a measure of effect size. It is defined as the number of patients who need to be treated for one additional patient to experience an adverse outcome. The NNH is conventionally calculated in the context of a randomized controlled trial. This article explains how the NNH can be estimated and understood for a lifestyle behavior in the context of an observational study in which the outcome was described using an uncommon unit. The lifestyle behavior, here, was the intake of ultraprocessed food and the outcome was stated as the number of events per 1000 person-years. The NNH can be estimated from the data provided, expressed in different ways, and converted into a form that is relevant to clinical practice.
Abstract via Europe PMC. Copyright remains with the authors or publisher (CC BY-NC-SA).
Community trust
Loading…
How much do you trust this study's findings?
Comments
Sign in to rate, comment on or flag this study.Sign inSomething wrong here?
Flag this study if its information, labels or funding look wrong. An editor reviews every flag.
Sign in to rate, comment on or flag this study.Sign inEducational information about published research. Not medical advice, and not a recommendation to start or stop anything.