Prescribing Advice for GPs

An NHS Prescribing Advisers' Blog

Relative vs. Absolute Benefit

Published studies will often quote risk reductions and almost without exception these are relative risk reductions rather than actual risk reductions. This is because relative risk reductions are usually numerically greater than the actual risk reduction. Larger numbers will look and sound more impressive.

For example, in the FIT 1 study hip fracture rates were decreased from a baseline risk of 2.2% to 1.1% in the treatment arm. This is an absolute risk reduction of 1.1% or a relative risk reduction of 50% - which sounds better to you?

Share 'Relative vs. Absolute Benefit' on Email Share 'Relative vs. Absolute Benefit' on Delicious Share 'Relative vs. Absolute Benefit' on Digg Share 'Relative vs. Absolute Benefit' on Facebook Share 'Relative vs. Absolute Benefit' on Google+ Share 'Relative vs. Absolute Benefit' on reddit Share 'Relative vs. Absolute Benefit' on StumbleUpon Share 'Relative vs. Absolute Benefit' on Twitter

atomic-wealth

No Comments to “Relative vs. Absolute Benefit”

Leave a Comment

(required)

(required)


Prescribing Advice for GPs is powered by WordPress.
Subscribe for Free to our RSS or Atom Feeds for New Entries.
Akismet has protected Prescribing Advice for GPs from 789,430 spam comments.

atomic-wealth
fond-illness
summer