Reporting only relative effect measures was potentially misleading: some good practices for improving the soundness of epidemiological results
Novelli Marco, Alessandro Baldi Antognini, Paolo Boffetta, John Ioannidis, Giovanna Spatari, Francesco Violante
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).
There are no accessible files associated with this release. You could check other releases for this work for an accessible version.
Know of a fulltext copy of on the public web? Submit a URL and we will archive it
Not in DOAJ
In Keepers Registry
access all versions, variants, and formats of this works (eg, pre-prints)
Crossref Metadata (via API)
SHERPA/RoMEO (journal policies)