Skip to content
By using Twitter’s services you agree to our Cookies Use. We and our partners operate globally and use cookies, including for analytics, personalisation, and ads.
  • Home Home Home, current page.
  • About

Saved searches

  • Remove
  • In this conversation
    Verified accountProtected Tweets @
Suggested users
  • Verified accountProtected Tweets @
  • Verified accountProtected Tweets @
  • Language: English
    • Bahasa Indonesia
    • Bahasa Melayu
    • Català
    • Čeština
    • Dansk
    • Deutsch
    • English UK
    • Español
    • Filipino
    • Français
    • Hrvatski
    • Italiano
    • Magyar
    • Nederlands
    • Norsk
    • Polski
    • Português
    • Română
    • Slovenčina
    • Suomi
    • Svenska
    • Tiếng Việt
    • Türkçe
    • Ελληνικά
    • Български език
    • Русский
    • Српски
    • Українська мова
    • עִבְרִית
    • العربية
    • فارسی
    • मराठी
    • हिन्दी
    • বাংলা
    • ગુજરાતી
    • தமிழ்
    • ಕನ್ನಡ
    • ภาษาไทย
    • 한국어
    • 日本語
    • 简体中文
    • 繁體中文
  • Have an account? Log in
    Have an account?
    · Forgot password?

    New to Twitter?
    Sign up
GidMK's profile
Health Nerd
Health Nerd
Health Nerd
Verified account
@GidMK

Tweets

Health NerdVerified account

@GidMK

Epidemiologist. Writer (Guardian, Observer etc). "Well known research trouble-maker". PhDing at @UoW Host of @senscipod Email gidmk.healthnerd@gmail.com he/him

Sydney, New South Wales
theguardian.com/profile/gideon…
Joined November 2015

Tweets

  • © 2021 Twitter
  • About
  • Help Center
  • Terms
  • Privacy policy
  • Cookies
  • Ads info
Dismiss
Previous
Next

Go to a person's profile

Saved searches

  • Remove
  • In this conversation
    Verified accountProtected Tweets @
Suggested users
  • Verified accountProtected Tweets @
  • Verified accountProtected Tweets @

Promote this Tweet

Block

  • Tweet with a location

    You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more

    Your lists

    Create a new list


    Under 100 characters, optional

    Privacy

    Copy link to Tweet

    Embed this Tweet

    Embed this Video

    Add this Tweet to your website by copying the code below. Learn more

    Add this video to your website by copying the code below. Learn more

    Hmm, there was a problem reaching the server.

    By embedding Twitter content in your website or app, you are agreeing to the Twitter Developer Agreement and Developer Policy.

    Preview

    Why you're seeing this ad

    Log in to Twitter

    · Forgot password?
    Don't have an account? Sign up »

    Sign up for Twitter

    Not on Twitter? Sign up, tune into the things you care about, and get updates as they happen.

    Sign up
    Have an account? Log in »

    Two-way (sending and receiving) short codes:

    Country Code For customers of
    United States 40404 (any)
    Canada 21212 (any)
    United Kingdom 86444 Vodafone, Orange, 3, O2
    Brazil 40404 Nextel, TIM
    Haiti 40404 Digicel, Voila
    Ireland 51210 Vodafone, O2
    India 53000 Bharti Airtel, Videocon, Reliance
    Indonesia 89887 AXIS, 3, Telkomsel, Indosat, XL Axiata
    Italy 4880804 Wind
    3424486444 Vodafone
    » See SMS short codes for other countries

    Confirmation

     

    Welcome home!

    This timeline is where you’ll spend most of your time, getting instant updates about what matters to you.

    Tweets not working for you?

    Hover over the profile pic and click the Following button to unfollow any account.

    Say a lot with a little

    When you see a Tweet you love, tap the heart — it lets the person who wrote it know you shared the love.

    Spread the word

    The fastest way to share someone else’s Tweet with your followers is with a Retweet. Tap the icon to send it instantly.

    Join the conversation

    Add your thoughts about any Tweet with a Reply. Find a topic you’re passionate about, and jump right in.

    Learn the latest

    Get instant insight into what people are talking about now.

    Get more of what you love

    Follow more accounts to get instant updates about topics you care about.

    Find what's happening

    See the latest conversations about any topic instantly.

    Never miss a Moment

    Catch up instantly on the best stories happening as they unfold.

    1. Health Nerd‏Verified account @GidMK 8 Jan 2020

      So our relative risk ratio is 2 Our odds ratio is 2.25 They are different, but used interchangeably by the press!pic.twitter.com/aq9Aw0jduN

      1 reply 1 retweet 13 likes
      Show this thread
    2. Health Nerd‏Verified account @GidMK 8 Jan 2020

      The thing is, by definition odds ratios are higher than relative risk ratios - it's mathematically certain When the risks are low, this effect is small, but if the risks are big it's very noticeable

      1 reply 1 retweet 10 likes
      Show this thread
    3. Health Nerd‏Verified account @GidMK 8 Jan 2020

      For example, if your two risks are 0.01% and 0.02%, the risk ratio is 2 and the odds ratio is: (0.02/99.98)/(0.01/99.99) = 2.0002 Barely different

      1 reply 0 retweets 6 likes
      Show this thread
    4. Health Nerd‏Verified account @GidMK 8 Jan 2020

      But if the two risks are 20% and 40%, the risk ratio is still 2 (40/20) but the odds ratio becomes VERY different: (40/60)/(20/80) = 2.67 That's a lot higher!pic.twitter.com/73Fc7CxeUU

      1 reply 1 retweet 9 likes
      Show this thread
    5. Health Nerd‏Verified account @GidMK 8 Jan 2020

      Going back to this headline that I picked up - it looks at a study that used logistic regression, which spits out odds ratiospic.twitter.com/8vHaEBaLIS

      1 reply 1 retweet 5 likes
      Show this thread
    6. Health Nerd‏Verified account @GidMK 8 Jan 2020

      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

      1 reply 1 retweet 8 likes
      Show this thread
    7. Health Nerd‏Verified account @GidMK 8 Jan 2020

      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!

      1 reply 1 retweet 9 likes
      Show this thread
    8. Health Nerd‏Verified account @GidMK 8 Jan 2020

      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

      1 reply 0 retweets 15 likes
      Show this thread
    9. Health Nerd‏Verified account @GidMK 8 Jan 2020

      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

      1 reply 0 retweets 15 likes
      Show this thread
    10. Health Nerd‏Verified account @GidMK 8 Jan 2020

      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!

      2 replies 0 retweets 11 likes
      Show this thread
      Health Nerd‏Verified account @GidMK 8 Jan 2020

      Anyway, a reasonable proportions of the headlines you've seen probably overestimate the actual risk because the studies used odds ratios 👍

      5:56 PM - 8 Jan 2020
      • 1 Retweet
      • 10 Likes
      • ANISH KAR Crisis Averted! Neele Engelmann Button Ryan Harris Son of God, Ronald J. Dodge 𝕋𝕖𝕩𝕒𝕤 ℂ𝕙𝕖𝕖𝕤𝕖𝕔𝕒𝕜𝕖 kelly (under development) Dolce
      4 replies 1 retweet 10 likes
        1. New conversation
        2. Dr Elly Howse‏ @ellyhowse 8 Jan 2020
          Replying to @GidMK

          #epitwitter 4 the win

          1 reply 2 retweets 1 like
        3. Health Nerd‏Verified account @GidMK 8 Jan 2020
          Replying to @ellyhowse

          Oh yeh should've used the hashtag lol

          0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
        4. End of conversation
        1. New conversation
        2. Krista Tee‏ @kristatee 8 Jan 2020
          Replying to @GidMK

          I have noticed many studies are reporting OR much more than RR in epi studies I’ve been reading lately. (Some HR, but mostly OR lately.) I’m not sure why. Maybe the higher number is more impressive for publication (part of publication bias)?

          2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
        3. Health Nerd‏Verified account @GidMK 8 Jan 2020
          Replying to @kristatee

          My bet is that it's because everyone dichotomizes their outcomes and uses logistic regression

          0 replies 0 retweets 1 like
        4. End of conversation
        1. New conversation
        2. Andrew Ross‏ @AndrewRoss82 10 Jan 2020
          Replying to @GidMK

          Great stuff @GidMK Why do some cohort studies use OR instead of RR - is that because some use logistic regressions?

          1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
        3. Health Nerd‏Verified account @GidMK 10 Jan 2020
          Replying to @AndrewRoss82

          It depends, but often yes

          0 replies 0 retweets 1 like
        4. End of conversation
        1. Dr Paul Mackey‏ @auscandoc 10 Jan 2020
          Replying to @GidMK

          Thanks for this. _Never_ had the difference explained to me and certainly never actually knew how an odds ratio was derived. Rather embarrassing as one of the EBM faculty. But also distressing as I’ll give you good odds that nearly all of my colleagues don’t understand either.

          0 replies 0 retweets 1 like
          Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. Undo
          Undo

      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.

        Promoted Tweet

        false

        • © 2021 Twitter
        • About
        • Help Center
        • Terms
        • Privacy policy
        • Cookies
        • Ads info