Relative risk ratios are also pretty easy. It's just the risk of one thing divided by another Let's say we've got 2 groups A and B. A has a 10% risk of the event, B has a 20% risk What's the risk ratio of B:A?
-
-
The results were reported as odds, with vapers having a 1.83 times higher odds of stroke than non-vapers Given that the prevalence of stroke was 2-4% in the groups, that means that the risk ratio would be a bit lower than 1.83
Show this thread -
In other words, the headline rounds UP from 83% to a 100% increase (double), but in actual fact it's more likely that the risk is somewhere around 75% instead!
Show this thread -
And this is done almost ubiquitously across the board It's not really the media's fault - scientists do it all the time as well!pic.twitter.com/BjxCDlughU
Show this thread -
It's also really hard to tell if the study used risks or odds unless you actually read it, which adds a layer of complexity to the matter
Show this thread -
Honestly, I want to end on a nice easy note, but the fact is that odds are confusing, a lot of researchers get them wrong, and it's unlikely we'll have a solution to this any time soon Hurray!
Show this thread -
Anyway, a reasonable proportions of the headlines you've seen probably overestimate the actual risk because the studies used odds ratios
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
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.