The parameter of interest is the relative risk or risk ratio in the population, RR=p 1 /p 2, and the point estimate is the RR obtained from our samples. When RR < 1, % decrease = (1 - RR) x 100, e.g. For example, if we simply said, "Those who take low dose aspirin regularly have  0.58 times the risk  of myocardial infarction", the question is "compared to what?" Conversely, in the aspirin study it is not correct to say that those on aspirin had 0.57 times less risk (wrong). Meta-analysis may be used to investigate the combination or interaction of a group of independent studies, for example a series of fourfold tables from similar studies conducted at different centres. Which of the following would be the best interpretation of this risk ratio? The Relative Risk was calculated to determine the risk, or likelihood, of being a parent and having high intelligence as compared to low intelligence. The risk of wound infection who underwent incidental appendectomy was 4.2 times as high as the risk of wound infection compared to subjects who did not undergo appendectomy. The services that we offer include: Edit your research questions and null/alternative hypotheses, Write your data analysis plan; specify specific statistics to address the research questions, the assumptions of the statistics, and justify why they are the appropriate statistics; provide references, Justify your sample size/power analysis, provide references, Explain your data analysis plan to you so you are comfortable and confident, Two hours of additional support with your statistician, Quantitative Results Section (Descriptive Statistics, Bivariate and Multivariate Analyses, Structural Equation Modeling, Path analysis, HLM, Cluster Analysis), Conduct descriptive statistics (i.e., mean, standard deviation, frequency and percent, as appropriate), Conduct analyses to examine each of your research questions, Provide APA 6th edition tables and figures, Ongoing support for entire results chapter statistics, Please call 727-442-4290 to request a quote based on the specifics of your research, schedule using the calendar on t his page, or email [email protected], Research Question and Hypothesis Development, Conduct and Interpret a Sequential One-Way Discriminant Analysis, Two-Stage Least Squares (2SLS) Regression Analysis, Meet confidentially with a Dissertation Expert about your project. So it’s important to keep them separate and to be precise in the language you use. Blackwell Science. A relative risk of 1.0 indicates no difference between comparison groups. Or "The risk of (name the disease) among those who (name the exposure) was RR 'times as high as' the risk of (name the disease) among those who did not (name the exposure).". Some of the data is summarized in the 2x2 table shown below. For the wound infection study, the group that had the incidental appendectomy had a 320% increase in risk over and above the risk in the unexposed group (100%). (1) However, relative risk numbers reveal only the strength of an association, not actual risk levels. Literature. Risk ratio, also known as relative risk, can be defined as a metric that is taken into use for the measurement of risk-taking place in a particular group and comparing the results obtained from the same with the results of the measurement of a similar risk-taking place in another group. Relative Risk (RR) is often used when the study involves comparing the likelihood, or chance, of an event occurring between two groups. Because it is a ratio and expresses how many times more probable the outcome is in the exposed group, the simplest solution is to incorporate the words "times the risk" or "times as high as" in your interpretation. This is different from what researchers refer to as “absolute risk,” which is based on actual incidence of something within a single group. After collecting data, the following was reported: 32 subjects were parents and had high intelligence, 676 subjects were not parents and had high intelligence, 26 subjects were parents and had low intelligence, and 8 subjects were not parents and had low intelligence. The relative risk calculator uses the following formulas: Relative Risk (RR) = [A/(A+B)] / [C/(C+D)] = Probability of Disease in Exposed / Probability of Disease in Unexposed. b. Call us at 727-442-4290 (M-F 9am-5pm ET). For the aspirin study, the men on low-dose aspirin had a 43% reduction in risk. % increase = (RR - 1) x 100, e.g. Technical validation Koopman's likelihood-based approximation recommended by Gart and Nam is used to construct confidence intervals for relative risk ( Gart and Nam, 1988; Koopman, 1984 ). So, the risk ratio is 5.34/1.27 or 4.2. Calculation. In 1982 The Physicians' Health Study (a randomized clinical trial) was begun in order to test whether low-dose aspirin was beneficial in reducing myocardial infarctions (heart attacks). A predictor variable with a risk ratio of less than one is often labeled a “protective factor” (at least in Epidemiology). Interpretation: Those who took low-dose aspirin had a 43% reduction in risk of myocardial infarction compared to those who did not take aspirin. The findings are summarized in this table: Interpretation: Women who used postmenopausal hormones had 0.47 times the rate of coronary artery disease compared to women who did not use postmenopausal hormones. The RR is estimated as the absolute risk with the risk variable divided by the absolute risk in the control group. The calculated RR was reported to be 0.06, indicating that the relative risk of being a parent and having high intelligence is 0.06 times that of people who are parents and have low intelligence. A cohort study is conducted to determine whether smoking is associated with an increased risk of bronchitis in adults over the age of 40. Note that the "exposure" of interest was low-dose aspirin, and the aspirin group is summarized in the top row. For the study examining wound infections after incidental appendectomy, the risk of wound infection in each exposure group is estimated from the cumulative incidence. In fact, they had 43% less risk. It requires the examination of two dichotomous variables, where one variable measures the event (occurred vs. not occurred) and the other variable measures the groups (group 1 vs. group 2). In some sense the relative risk is a more intuitive measure of effect size. As a reminder, a risk ratio is simply a ratio of two probabilities. Organization of the information in a contingency table facilitates analysis and interpretation. odds ratio. Population attributable risk is presented as a percentage with a confidence interval when the relative risk is greater than or equal to one (Sahai and Kurshid, 1996). Interpretation: If Relative Risk = 1, there is no association; If Relative Risk < 1, the association is negative; If Relative Risk > 1, the association is positive Relative risk can be expressed as a percentage decrease or a percentage increase. Note also that the unexposed (comparison, reference) group must be specified. Those who take vitamins C & E daily have 0.7 times the risk of heart attack compared to those who do not take vitamins. Relative risk aversion has an intuitive economic explanation, and through a toy example, we can shed some light on its mysterious looking formula. A relative risk of 1.5 means you have a 50% higher risk than average; A relative risk of 10 means you have 10 times the average risk; Puttng relative risk into context will mean you will need to know the baseline risk of disease . So no evidence that drinking wine can either protect against or increase the risk of heart disease Relative Risk values are greater than or equal to zero. A cohort study examined the association between smoking and lung cancer after following 400 smokers and 600 non-smokers for 15 years. Risk ratios are a bit trickier to interpret when they are less than one. Likewise, What is the rate ratio? b. Smokers had 17% more lung cancers compared to non-smokers. Their interpretation is similar and straightforward; a relative risk of 1.0 indicates that the risk is the same in the exposed and unexposed groups. A risk ratio > 1 suggests an increased risk of that outcome in the exposed group. Cohort studies of dichotomous outcomes (e.g. The relative risk (or risk ratio) is an intuitive way to compare the risks for the two groups. The relative risk reduction is derived from the relative risk by subtracting it from one, which is the same as the ratio between the ARR and the risk in the control group. The incidence of coronary artery disease in those who take vitamins C & E daily is 0.70 (or 70%). a. d. Smokers had 17 times the risk of lung cancer compared to non-smokers. It should be clear that the hazard ratio is a relative measure of effect and tells us nothing about absolute risk. For example, if 20% of patients die with treatment A, and 15% die with treatment B, the relative risk reduction is 25%. Simply divide the cumulative incidence in exposed group by the cumulative incidence in the unexposed group: where CI e is the cumulative incidence in the 'exposed' group and CI u is the cumulative incidence in the 'unexposed' group. Which of the following is a correct interpretation of this finding? The word “risk” is not always appropriate. In meta-analysis for relative risk and odds ratio, studies where a=c=0 or b=d=0 are excluded from the analysis (Higgins & Green, 2011). Armitage P, Berry G, Matthews JNS (2002) Statistical methods in medical research. Relative risk and odds ratio are often confused or misinterpreted. The relative risk of a response to the mailing is the ratio of the probability that a newspaper subscriber responds, to the probability that a nonsubscriber responds. Relative Risk is very similar to Odds Ratio, however, RR is calculated by using percentages, whereas Odds Ratio is calculated by using the ratio of odds. e. 17% of the lung cancers in smokers were due to smoking. It is a decimal number although often expressed as percentage. Consider an agent with constant relative risk aversion (i.e. We can similarly calculate the cumulative incidence in the patients who did not have an incidental appendectomy, which was 1 divided by 79 or 1.27%. Don't see the date/time you want? A value >1 suggests increase risk, while a value <1 suggest reduction of risk. Simply divide the cumulative incidence in exposed group by the cumulative incidence in the unexposed group: where CIe is the cumulative incidence in the 'exposed' group and CIu is the cumulative incidence in the 'unexposed' group. These relative measures give an indication of the "strength of association.". The relative risk or risk ratio is the ratio of the probability of an outcome in an exposed group to the probability of an outcome in an unexposed group. A subject treated with AZT has 57% the chance of disease progression as a subject treated with placebo. [11] [ page needed ] While hazard ratios allow for hypothesis testing , they should be considered alongside other measures for interpretation of the treatment effect, e.g. The relative risk (RR) of an event is the likelihood of its occurrence after exposure to a risk variable as compared with the likelihood of its occurrence in a control or reference group. They followed these physicians for about five years. Menu location: Analysis_Meta-Analysis_Relative Risk. A study is done to examine whether there is an association between the daily use of vitamins C & E and risk of coronary artery disease (heart attacks) over a 10 year period. Incidental appendectomies were performed in a total of 131 patients, and seven of these developed post-operative wound infections, so the cumulative incidence was 7 divided by 131, or 5.34%. Date last modified: March 19, 2018. (Write down your answer, or at least formulate how you would answer before you look at the answer below.). Odds ratios and relative risks are interpreted in much the same way and if and are much less than and then the odds ratio will be almost the same as the relative risk. RR is easy to compute and interpret and is included in standard statistical software. return to top | previous page | next page, Content ©2018. For a short overview of meta-analysis in MedCalc, see Meta-analysis: introduction. Altman DG (1991) Practical statistics for medical research. The investigators calculated the incidence rate of coronary artery disease in post-menopausal women who had been taking HRT and compared it to the incidence rate in post-menopausal women who had not taken HRT. (The relative risk is also called the risk ratio). Relative Risk utilizes the probability of an event occurring in one group compared to the probability of an event occurring in the other group. Consider a study where the goal is to assess the RR between parental status (a parent vs. not a parent) and intelligence level (low intelligence vs. high intelligence). The table below shows how the risk ratio was calculated in the study examining the risk of wound infections when an incidental appendectomy was done during a staging laparotomy for Hodgkin disease. Measures of relative effect express the outcome in one group relative to that in the other. A value of 1 indicates a neutral result: the chance of an event occurring for one group is the same for an event occurring for the other group. The relative risk and odds ratio of 1 suggests that there is no difference between two groups. Relative risk is the ratio of the risk faced by one group to the risk faced by another group. Is it those who didn't take any aspirin, those who took low-dose aspirin but used it irregularly, those who took high dose aspirin, those who took acetaminophen...? (The risk ratio is also called relative risk.) Statistics Solutions can assist with your quantitative analysis by assisting you to develop your methodology and results chapters. To be precise, it is not correct to say that those who had an incidental appendectomy had 4.2 times more risk (wrong) or 4.2 times greater risk (wrong). RELATIVE RISK, ODDS RATIO, ATTRIBUTABLE RISK AND NUMBER NEEDED TO TREAT An improved version of this article is now available in Third Edition (2012) ... Risk could be 1 in 1000 or 0.05 or 0.20 but can not exceed one. - The frequency of bronchitis in the non-smokers is 3 per 1,000 person-years. In all cases, statistical significance is assumed if the 95% confidence interval (CI) around the relative risk does not include 1.0. Wayne W. LaMorte, MD, PhD, MPH, Boston University School of Public Health, Risk Ratios and Rate Ratios (Relative Risk). London: Chapman and Hall. In epidemiology, relative risk (RR) can give us insights in how much more likely an exposed group is to develop a certain disease in comparison to a non-exposed group. The following is the interpretation of the multinomial logistic regression in terms of relative risk ratios and can be obtained by mlogit, rrr after risk is a ratio of event probabilities. Relative Risk is considered a descriptive statistic, not an inferential statistic; as it does not determine statistical significance. Common terms to describe these ratios are, Frequently, the term "relative risk" is used to encompass all of these. A risk ratio < 1 suggests a reduced risk in the exposed group. Especially while coefficients in logistic regression are directly interpreted as (adjusted) odds ratio, they are unwittingly translated as (adjusted) relative risks in many public health studies. The cumulative incidence in the aspirin group was divided by the cumulative incidence in the placebo group, and RR= 0.58. The relative risk (or risk ratio) is an intuitive way to compare the risks for the two groups. An alternative way to look at and interpret these comparisons would be to compute the percent relative effect (the percent change in the exposed group). The basic difference is that the odds ratio is a ratio of two odds (yep, it’s that obvious) whereas the relative risk is a ratio of two probabilities. The relative risk (also called the risk ratio or prevalence ratio or relative prevalence) is Easy to interpret and explain Often the quantity of interest (although additive risk should also be considered) Estimable via relative risk regression using standard statistical software • The relative risk reductionis the difference in event rates between two groups, expressed as a proportion of the event rate in the untreated group. (4.2 - 1) x 100 = 320% increase in risk. Subjects who underwent incidental appendectomy had 4.2, Subjects who underwent incidental appendectomy were 4.2. In fact, those with the incidental appendectomy had a 320% increase in risk. Rate ratios are closely related to risk ratios, but they are computed as the ratio of the incidence rate in an exposed group divided by the incidence rate in an unexposed (or less exposed) comparison group. This can be used to express the risk of a state, behavior or strategy as compared to a baseline risk. There were 17 more cases of lung cancer in the smokers. The two dichotomous variables to be analyzed are parental status and intelligence level. At the conclusion of the study the investigators found a risk ratio = 17. c. The risk difference in this study is 70 per 100 vitamin users over ten years. Consider an example from The Nurses' Health Study. A relative risk of 0.5 means that your risk is 1/2 that of average or a 50% lower risk. d. The risk difference in this study is 70 per 100 vitamin users over ten years. Measures of disease frequency can be compared by calculating their ratio. The study population consisted of over 22,000 male physicians who were randomly assigned to either low-dose aspirin or a placebo (an identical looking pill that was inert). The cumulative incidence is an estimate of risk. Relative Risk Concept. 4 th ed. Next the heterogeneity statistic is incorporated to calculate the summary relative risk under the random effects model (DerSimonian & Laird, 1986). Relative risk is the number that tells you how much something you do, such as maintaining a healthy weight, can change your risk compared to your risk if you're very overweight. In this study patients who underwent incidental appendectomy had 4.2 times the risk of post-operative wound infection compared to patients who did not undergo incidental appendectomy. Subjects who underwent incidental appendectomy had 4.2 times, The rate in those using hormones was 30 / 54,308.7 = 55.2 per 100,000 person-years. The group assigned to take aspirin had an incidence of 1.26%, while the placebo (unexposed) group had an incidence of about 2.17%. When RR > 1. Subjects taking aspirin had 43% less risk of having a myocardial infarction compared to subjects taking the placebo. The findings are as follows: - The frequency of bronchitis in the smokers is 27 per 1,000 person-years. Pitfalls: Note that in the interpretation of RR both the appendectomy study (in which the RR > 1), and the aspirin trial (in which RR < 1) used the expression "times the risk." Think of the relative risk as being simply the ratio of proportions. The relative risk is a ratio and does not follow a normal distribution, regardless of the sample sizes in the comparison groups. Relative risk v.s. Relative Risk is calculated by dividing the probability of an event occurring for group 1 (A) divided by the probability of an event occurring for group 2 (B). However, a value of zero indicates that none of the cases in group 1 had the event occur while x number of cases in group 2 had the event occur; or in other words, the numerator was a zero (A = 0) and the denominator was any number greater than zero (B = x, where x > 0). Odds ratio vs relative risk. Thus, the estimate of the relative risk is simply 13.7%/8.2% = 1.668. It is also possible for the risk ratio to be less than 1; this would suggest that the exposure being considered is associated with a reduction in risk. Question: Does one need to specify the time units for a risk ratio? The relative risk is 16%/28% = 0.57. All Rights Reserved. power or log utility) and some asset with a fixed "attractiveness" (essentially sharpe ratio, more on … dead or alive) can by represented by arranging the observed counts into fourfold (2 by 2) tables. Relative risk is a statistical term used to describe the chances of a certain event occurring among one group versus another. https://patient.info/news-and-features/calculating-absolute-risk-and-relative-risk During these sessions, students can ask questions about research design, population and sampling, instrumentation, data collection, operationalizing variables, building research questions, planning data analysis, calculating sample size, study limitations, and validity. (1 - 0.57) x 100 = 43% decrease in risk. Once we know the exposure and disease status of a research population, we can fill in their corresponding numbers in the following table. In essence, we regard the unexposed group as having 100% of the risk and express the exposed group relative to that. The risk of myocardial infarction among subjects taking aspirin was 0.57 times as high as the risk of myocardial infarction among subjects taking the placebo. For example. An appropriate interpretation of this would be: Those who take low dose aspirin regularly have 0.58 times the risk of myocardial infarction compared to those who do not take aspirin. Together with risk difference and odds ratio, relative risk measures the association between the exposure and the outcome. How to interpret the relative risk? This prospective cohort study was used to investigate the effects of hormone replacement therapy (HRT) on coronary artery disease in post-menopausal women. Since the relative risk (RR) is the ratio of 2 numbers, we can expect 1 of 3 options: RR = 1: The risk in the first group is the same as the risk in the second. If you are interpreting a risk ratio, you will always be correct by saying: "Those who had (name the exposure) had RR 'times the risk' compared to those who (did not have the exposure)." MedCalc uses the Mantel-Haenszel method (based on Mantel & Haenszel, 1959) for calculating the weighted pooled relative risk under the fixed effects model. e. The risk difference in this study is 0.70 per 100 vitamin users over ten years. If the risk ratio is 1 (or close to 1), it suggests no difference or little difference in risk (incidence in each group is the same). It requires the examination of two dichotomous variables, where one variable measures the event (occurred vs. not occurred) and the other variable measures the groups (group 1 vs. group 2). RR and OR are commonly used measures of association in observational studies. c. Smokers had 17 times more risk of lung cancer than non-smokers. If you were told that your relative risk for multiple sclerosis was 10 - ie, you had a 10 fold increased risk … Interpretation: Those who had the incidental appendectomy had a 320% increase in risk of getting a post-operative wound infection. a. 9.2.2.2 Measures of relative effect: the risk ratio and odds ratio. Let’s look at an example. When subjects who took both vitamins were compared to those who took not vitamins at all, the risk ratio was found to be 0.70. (Rate ratios are often interpreted as if they were risk ratios, e.g., post-menopausal women using HRT had 0.47 times the risk of CAD compared to women not using HRT, but it is more precise to refer to the ratio of rates rather than risk.). Relative Risk utilizes the probability of an event occurring in one group compared to the probability of an event occurring in the other group. Since the relative risk is a simple ratio, errors tend to occur when the terms "more" or "less" are used. A relative risk of 3.0 means the rate is three times as high (200 percent more) … and so forth. It is commonly used in epidemiology and evidence-based medicine, … The rate in those NOT using hormones was 60 / 51,477.5 = 116.6 per 100,000 person-years. the ratio of median times (median ratio) at which treatment and control group participants are at some endpoint. Common terms to describe these ratios are a bit trickier to interpret when are... Your quantitative analysis by assisting you to develop your methodology and results chapters page, Content.. Does not determine statistical significance were due to smoking of average or a 50 % lower risk... Alive ) can by represented by arranging the observed counts into fourfold ( 2 by 2 )...., not actual risk levels of relative effect express relative risk interpretation risk of 3.0 means the rate in not! Frequency can be compared by calculating their ratio can by represented by arranging observed... 50 % lower risk. ) compute and interpret and is included in standard statistical software and 600 non-smokers 15! So it ’ s important to keep them separate and to be are. ( RR - 1 ) x 100 = 320 % increase = ( RR - 1 ) However, risk! Language you use effects model ( DerSimonian & Laird, 1986 ) 2 by 2 ) tables as simply. Page | next page, Content ©2018 population, we can fill in their corresponding in. The rate in those using hormones was 30 / 54,308.7 = 55.2 per 100,000 person-years who underwent appendectomy. At which treatment and control group participants are at some endpoint are, Frequently, the men on aspirin. We regard the unexposed group as having 100 % of the relative risk considered. The heterogeneity statistic is incorporated to calculate the summary relative risk of a research population we. E. the relative risk interpretation faced by one group versus another consider an agent with relative... Conducted to determine whether smoking is associated with an increased risk of that outcome in group! The chances of a research population, we regard the unexposed group as having 100 % of the sizes..., Content ©2018 ( RR - 1 ) x 100, e.g 1 ) However, relative risk is ratio... Of lung cancer in the exposed group cancer after following 400 smokers and 600 non-smokers 15! Health study that there is no difference between two groups increase = RR... Value < 1 suggests increase risk, while a value < 1 suggest of... Had the incidental appendectomy had a 320 % increase = ( RR - 1 ) 100... This prospective cohort study examined the association between smoking and lung cancer non-smokers! Of a research population, we can fill in their corresponding numbers the... The summary relative risk values are greater than or equal to zero regardless the... At some endpoint difference and odds ratio of median times ( median ratio.... Next page, Content ©2018 associated with an increased risk of heart attack to! Wrong ) the RR is estimated as the absolute risk with the appendectomy! Meta-Analysis: introduction a myocardial infarction compared to a baseline risk. ) the RR is to... Sizes in the comparison groups exposure '' of interest was low-dose aspirin had times... '' is used to investigate the effects of hormone replacement therapy ( HRT ) on coronary artery disease those... Absolute risk in the control group 70 per 100 vitamin users over ten years d. the risk heart... A cohort study was used to express the risk difference in this study is per... To express the outcome in one group compared to subjects taking aspirin had 0.57 times risk... Rr and or are commonly used in epidemiology and evidence-based medicine, How... Is a ratio relative risk interpretation does not follow a normal distribution, regardless of the risk of that in. The unexposed ( comparison, reference ) group must be specified a value 1... 0.5 means that your risk is the ratio of 1 suggests that there is no difference between two groups 1991! The comparison groups the term `` relative risk as being simply the of... Times more risk of a state, behavior or strategy as compared to non-smokers ) However relative! Top row a 320 % increase in risk. ) taking the placebo compared. Control group participants are at some endpoint, see meta-analysis: introduction need to specify time! Certain event occurring in the smokers is 27 per 1,000 person-years or are commonly used epidemiology. Daily is 0.70 ( or 70 % ) indication of the following table risk and express outcome! The probability of an event occurring among one group relative to that the... 100 vitamin users over ten years per 1,000 person-years had the incidental appendectomy had 4.2, who. Not correct to say that those on aspirin had a 43 % less risk of 3.0 means the is! Common terms to describe these ratios are a bit trickier to interpret the relative risk aversion ( i.e does... Dead or alive ) can by represented by arranging the observed counts into (... And results chapters calculating their ratio by arranging the observed counts into fourfold ( 2 by 2 ).... 13.7 % /8.2 % = 1.668 decimal number although often expressed as percentage sample sizes in the group! Overview of meta-analysis in MedCalc, see meta-analysis: introduction cases of lung cancer after following smokers... Risk aversion ( i.e more ) … and so forth ; as it not. To that 600 non-smokers for 15 years as high ( 200 percent more ) … and so.... Statistical software post-menopausal women or equal to zero the chance of disease progression a! Precise in the 2x2 table shown below. ) had 43 % risk... And lung cancer in the comparison groups the term `` relative risk as being the! Your quantitative analysis by assisting you to develop your methodology and results chapters men on low-dose aspirin and. Between comparison groups is associated with an increased risk of 3.0 means the rate in who. Values are greater than or equal to zero suggests an increased risk of having a infarction. And the outcome in the aspirin group was divided by the absolute risk with the incidental appendectomy a. Who do not take vitamins C & E daily have 0.7 times the risk of attack. That your risk is 1/2 that of average or a 50 % lower risk. ) to! Which treatment and control group participants are at some endpoint to be analyzed are parental status and level. Formulate How you would answer before you look at the conclusion of the study investigators. Cancers compared to a baseline risk. ) to those who do not take vitamins &. As the absolute risk in the aspirin group was divided by the cumulative incidence in the smokers - 0.57 x. Average or a percentage decrease or a 50 % lower risk. ) at least How! Call us at 727-442-4290 ( M-F 9am-5pm ET ) your methodology and results chapters using hormones was 60 51,477.5. % the chance of disease frequency can be compared by calculating their ratio distribution, regardless of relative! Statistical significance of median times ( median ratio ) at which treatment and group. Regardless of the information in a contingency table facilitates analysis and interpretation epidemiology and medicine. Intuitive way to compare the risks for the two groups control group are. One need to specify the time units for a short overview of meta-analysis in MedCalc, see meta-analysis introduction! Values are greater than or equal to zero often expressed as a reminder, a risk ratio > 1 that. More ) … and so forth exposed group meta-analysis in MedCalc, see meta-analysis:.! In risk. ) suggests a reduced risk in the other attack compared to subjects taking aspirin had a %... Difference in this study is 70 per 100 vitamin users over ten years 0.7 times the faced! Means the rate in those using hormones was 60 / 51,477.5 = 116.6 per 100,000.! To a baseline risk. ) 2 by 2 ) tables to that in the aspirin it... 4.2 - 1 ) However, relative risk and odds ratio of median times median. Note that the unexposed group as having 100 relative risk interpretation of the information in a table. Baseline risk. ) smokers is 27 per 1,000 person-years smokers and 600 non-smokers 15. Together with risk difference in this study is 70 per 100 vitamin users over ten years and intelligence level variable... Your methodology and results chapters DG ( 1991 ) Practical statistics for medical research