China
Africa
Explore chapters and articles related to this topic
How to Assess Your Risk Using CHD Scoring Tests
Published in Mark C Houston, The Truth About Heart Disease, 2023
The Consortium of Southeastern Hypertension Centers (COSEHC) score estimates the risk of death from CHD or MI within five years with both absolute and relative risk. Please note that this score has more variables, estimates CHD death as absolute and relative risk, and also is a five-year (not ten-year) risk, like the FRS.Absolute Risk: probability of an adverse event occurring in an individual within a defined period of time.Relative Risk: probability of an adverse event happening in an individual compared to average or normal individuals sharing similar demographics other than the risk factor.High CHD risk is defined as follows:Relative Risk > 60th percentile (see the table below)Absolute Risk: Risk score > 40> 2.3% risk of CHD death in 5 years
Preparing Studies for Statistical Analysis
Published in Lynne M. Bianchi, Research during Medical Residency, 2022
Luke J. Rosielle, Lynne M. Bianchi
Use: Inferential Statistics, risk ratio, odds ratio, relative risk, absolute risk, prevalence, incidence, and descriptive statistics, as appropriate.Analytical Cross-Sectional Studies: Inferential statistics, odds ratioCase-Control Studies: Inferential statistics, odds ratio, relative risk, prevalence (retrospective studies), incidence (concurrent studies).Cohort Studies: Inferential statistics, relative risk, absolute risk, incidence (prospective studies).
Statistics, Research and Governance
Published in Manit Arya, Taimur T. Shah, Jas S. Kalsi, Herman S. Fernando, Iqbal S. Shergill, Asif Muneer, Hashim U. Ahmed, MCQs for the FRCS(Urol) and Postgraduate Urology Examinations, 2020
Hamid Abboudi, Erik Mayer, Justin Vale
Absolute risk reduction (ARR) of a disease is your risk of developing the disease over a time period. The same absolute risk can be expressed in different ways. For example, a 1 in 10 risk of developing a certain disease in your life. This can also be said to be a 10% risk, or a 0.1 risk – depending on whether you use percentages or decimals. Relative risk ratio (RR) is the proportion of bad outcomes in the intervention group divided by the proportion of bad outcomes in the control group. When a treatment has a RR greater than 1, the risk of a bad outcome is increased by the treatment; when the RR is less than 1, the risk of a bad outcome is decreased, meaning that the treatment is likely to do good. When the RR is exactly 1, the risk is unchanged.
Throwing stones: kidney stone incidence in living kidney donor candidates with increased metabolic risk
Published in Renal Failure, 2023
Amara Sarwal, Junji Yamauchi, Divya Raghavan, Fuad Shihab, Katalin Fornadi, George Rofaiel, Michael Zimmerman, Jeffrey Campsen, Nicholas Baker, Yamini Akhila Ganireddy, Leonardo Aviles-Ovalle, Talia Baker, Isaac E. Hall, Miklos Z. Molnar
Prior studies have noted an overall low incidence of post-donation kidney stones, even in donors with history of stones, and no increased risk of hospital encounters, hypertension, proteinuria, or reduced kidney function due to kidney stones [2,3]. The limited published data assessing long-term stone risk after donation has also been reassuring [4,5]. However, these studies have not included patients at increased metabolic risk for kidney stone formation. While urine metabolic testing appears to be limited in its ability to predict future recurrent stone formation [6], at least six different transplant guidelines have recommended urine metabolic profile testing for potential kidney donors with stone risk [7]. We therefore sought to elucidate the risk of developing kidney stones after kidney donation or candidate refusal in individuals with increased stone risk. We hypothesized that the absolute risk is low and similar in both groups.
Neutrophil Extracellular Traps (NET) and SARS-CoV-2
Published in Immunopharmacology and Immunotoxicology, 2023
Several case series report that the use of anakinra may be beneficial in the control of COVID-19 with a reduction in mortality and the need of mechanical ventilation [12]. Regarding the use of anti-IL-6 in COVID-19, a meta-analysis showed a favorable effect on mortality at 28 days after randomization. Indeed, 1407 out of 6449 people died in the tocilizumab group versus 1158 out of 4481 in the placebo group. This represents an absolute mortality risk of 22% for the anti-IL-6 group and 25% for the placebo group. Beneficial effects on the use of assisted ventilation were also demonstrated [13]. The JAK inhibitors baricitinib, ruxolitinib and tofacitinib have been shown to be well tolerated in patients [14]. A study of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 pneumonia showed that there was a reduction in 30-days mortality when treated with baricitinib. This study showed an absolute risk reduction of 18.5% in the population aged over 70 years. These results would be in agreement with the unpublished results of the COV-BARRIER study, where a 38% reduction in 28- days mortality has been observed [15].
Clinical recommendations made in dermatology publications are frequently not supported by adequate evidence
Published in Journal of Dermatological Treatment, 2021
Kathleen M. Coerdt, Wasim Haidari, William W. Huang, Steven R. Feldman
Diagnostic and treatment recommendations should be based on the best available evidence. Evidence of the effectiveness of a specific diagnostic or therapeutic modality can be reported in relative or absolute terms (1,2). Relative terms may include the odds ratio (OR), hazard ratio (HR), or relative risk (RR), while absolute terms may include the absolute risk reduction (ARR), attributable risk (AR), number needed to treat (NNT), or number needed to harm (NNH) (1,2). Many studies report data in relative terms. Reporting RR alone, however, does not provide a sufficient basis for making clinical recommendations (1,2). For example, in a randomized controlled trial comparing watchful waiting versus radical prostatectomy, results were presented to participants as both RR reduction (RRR) and ARR (3). The RRR was presented as: ‘Your risk of dying from prostate cancer is reduced by 40% if you receive A vs. B’, and ARR was presented as ‘There were 5.7% less deaths from prostate cancer from A vs. B’ (3). The participants felt that ARR was easier to understand than RRR (3). This may be due to the ARR providing a ‘‘‘baseline risk” to which the benefit of the intervention can be compared’ (3). Absolute risk analysis demonstrates the magnitude of associations more clearly, allowing the magnitude of benefit to be compared to costs/risks and guiding better clinical decision making (1–3).