title: Number needed to sacrifice: statistical taboo or decision-making tool?
abstract: The percentage that benefit from medical preventive measures is small but all are exposed to the risk of side effects so most of those harmed would never benefit from their use. There is no expression or acronym to describe the ratio of harm to benefit nor discussion of what level of harm is acceptable for what benefit. Here we describe the harm to benefit ratio (HBR) expressed as number harmed (H) for 100 to benefit (B) and calculated for commonly used medical interventions. For post TIA carotid endarterectomy the HBR is 25 (25 postoperative strokes or deaths are caused for 100 to be stroke free at 5 years); warfarin in atrial fibrillation in patients aged under 65 results in 400 intracerebral haemorrhages for every 100 saved from a thromboembolic event; fibrinolytic treatment for stroke causes 44 symptomatic intracranial haemorrhages for every 100 that have minimal disability at 3 months; aspirin in high risk patients causes 33 major bleeds for every 100 occlusive vascular events prevented; routine inpatient thromboprophylaxis causes 133 additional bleeds for every 100 pulmonary emboli prevented; breast cancer screening causes 1000 unnecessary cancer treatments for 100 cancer deaths to be prevented.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  The HBR or number needed to sacrifice is larger than most imagine. Its wider use would allow us better to recognise the number harmed, allow better informed consent, compare different preventive strategies and understand the risks as well as benefits of preventive treatments.
authors.affiliation: Darlington Memorial Hospital , Darlington DL3 6HX , UK.
authors.forename: Peter
authors.initials: P
authors.lastname: Trewby
references.citation: Ann Intern Med. 2009 Sep 1;151(5):297-305
references.pmid: 19721017
references.citation: Lancet. 2003 Jan 11;361(9352):107-16
references.pmid: 12531577
references.citation: BMJ. 2011 Jul 19;343:d4094
references.pmid: 21771831
references.citation: Gut. 2012 Jul;61(7):1050-7
references.pmid: 21940723
references.citation: N Engl J Med. 2007 Nov 29;357(22):2277-84
references.pmid: 18046031
references.citation: N Engl J Med. 1998 Nov 12;339(20):1415-25
references.pmid: 9811916
references.citation: BMJ. 2011 Jan 17;342:d54
references.pmid: 21242209
references.citation: Lancet. 2010 Feb 27;375(9716):735-42
references.pmid: 20167359
references.citation: Clin Ther. 2006 Jan;28(1):26-35
references.pmid: 16490577
references.citation: N Engl J Med. 1995 Dec 14;333(24):1581-7
references.pmid: 7477192
references.citation: Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006 Oct 18;(4):CD001877
references.pmid: 17054145
references.citation: Ann Intern Med. 2011 Nov 1;155(9):625-32
references.pmid: 22041951
references.citation: BMJ. 2011 Jul 19;343:d3942
references.pmid: 21771830
references.citation: BMJ. 2002 Jan 12;324(7329):71-86
references.pmid: 11786451
references.citation: Am J Gastroenterol. 2006 Feb;101(2):380-4
references.pmid: 16454847
references.citation: Lancet. 1998 May 9;351(9113):1379-87
references.pmid: 9593407
references.citation: Stroke. 2004 Dec;35(12):2855-61
references.pmid: 15514193