Reporting only relative effect measures was potentially misleading: some good practices for improving the soundness of epidemiological results release_pcuvn6ijdbec7nvsm4likaxk3q

by Novelli Marco, Alessandro Baldi Antognini, Paolo Boffetta, John Ioannidis, Giovanna Spatari, Francesco Violante

Published in Journal of Clinical Epidemiology by Elsevier BV.



In the medical and epidemiological literature there is a growing tendency to report an excessive number of decimal digits (often three, sometimes four), especially when measures of relative occurrence are small; this can be misleading. We combined mathematical and statistical reasoning about the precision of relative risks with the meaning of the decimal part of the same measures from biological and public health perspectives. We identified a general rule for minimizing the mathematical error due to rounding of relative risks, depending on the background absolute rate, which justifies the use of one or more decimal digits for estimates close to 1. We suggest that both relative and absolute risk measures (expressed as a rates) should be reported, and two decimal digits should be used for relative risk close to 1 only if the background rate is at least 1/1,000 py. The use of more than two decimal digits is justified only when the background rate is high (i.e., 1/10 py).
In text/plain format

Archived Files and Locations

There are no accessible files associated with this release. You could check other releases for this work for an accessible version.

"Dark" Archived
Save Paper Now!

Know of a fulltext copy of on the public web? Submit a URL and we will archive it

Type  article-journal
Stage   published
Date   2021-04-21
Language   en ?
Journal Metadata
Not in DOAJ
In Keepers Registery
ISSN-L:  0895-4356
Work Entity
access all versions, variants, and formats of this works (eg, pre-prints)
Catalog Record
Revision: cac1bba0-1e89-4763-b296-8b8c397aabfa