Two big take-homes from this blog: 1. Most media stories use only relative risk, and this is a big problem 2. Journalists should be reporting both, because they are both important
-
-
Show this thread
-
If only one risk is going to be reported, I think that absolute risk difference is much more useful for actual people who are trying to interpret the figures
Show this thread -
That being said, relative risk is extremely important for researchers like me who need to know the ratio of risks across different populations
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
- End of conversation
-
-
-
Great job, clear and compact! thanks Gid
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I agree both should be presented but AR does has significant issues with a public who can be woefully bad at understanding statistics. For ex, <5 year mortality data from smoking cessation, bp, LDL, BMI, glucose control, and exercise in an <40 pop can appear futile with AR
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Excellent piece!
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
One helpful way to explain the difference is that relative risk only looks at the individuals who turn out positive, whereas absolute risk includes the full data population.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Thank you, thank you.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.