{
  "$type": "site.standard.document",
  "bskyPostRef": {
    "cid": "bafyreiflls7clqbvgbrpvgnfkpxb4gqdwodc2ydpshvrlwoakwb72jonim",
    "uri": "at://did:plc:wwyqal4cnqhuwyacdj7rqq3n/app.bsky.feed.post/3mfztv4ppa3w2"
  },
  "path": "/t/generalizability-vs-transportability-in-trials/28551?page=3#post_55",
  "publishedAt": "2026-03-01T17:50:04.000Z",
  "site": "https://discourse.datamethods.org",
  "tags": [
    "are numerous",
    "@Stephen",
    "excellent post here"
  ],
  "textContent": "ESMD:\n\n> The criticisms are _multiple_ , but it feels like there must be a single “root” conceptual error, perpetrated by the developers of the technique, with _out_ which the technique would never have caught on.\n\nCorrect, the statistical limitations of NNTs are numerous but their fatal flaw in my practice is that they are unnecessary and cumbersome. Why would I need to invert the absolute risk reduction and navigate the conceptual maze of that inversion instead of simply spending time explaining the absolute risk reduction? I have never met a patient who is familiar with NNTs but not risks in their daily lives.\n\n@Stephen has written an excellent post here on why the inferential gymnastics of NNTs are not worth the mental space for clinicians or patients.",
  "title": "Generalizability vs. Transportability in Trials"
}