This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I think that Excess risk is another synonym for ARR and RD in some circles. If anyone agrees, feel free to redirect it to ARR. Cmcnicoll ( talk) 07:53, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
The table is incorrect. ARR should = AR when exposure is preventing disease. The cited source is correct, the table is not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.229.250.151 ( talk) 20:17, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
I may be wrong, but doesn't "reduces 2 cases of colon cancer to 1 case if you treat 6,000 people for five years" mean that the absolute risk reduction in this case is actually 1/6000 (i.e. 0.00017), rather than "0.003 fewer cases per person, using the colon cancer example above" as claimed under this heading? I have a sneaking suspicious that this article was written by a doctor.... ;-) 195.89.26.224 ( talk) 12:48, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
I could be wrong, but wouldn't CER − EER = 40% - 10% = positive 30% ?
I believe the textbook Basic Epidemiology describes ARR as Risk Difference, and states "The risk difference, also called excess risk, is the difference in rates of occurrence between exposed and unexposed groups". This would make the correct equation EER- CER and therefore 10% - 40% = (-)30%.
This would make the answer equal the one found in the table.
The textbook can be found at http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2006/9241547073_eng.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.224.89.189 ( talk) 13:14, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Why does the NNT in the work example table have "< 0: number needed to treat" when a number needed to treat is a positive number? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.161.242.83 ( talk) 06:22, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I think that Excess risk is another synonym for ARR and RD in some circles. If anyone agrees, feel free to redirect it to ARR. Cmcnicoll ( talk) 07:53, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
The table is incorrect. ARR should = AR when exposure is preventing disease. The cited source is correct, the table is not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.229.250.151 ( talk) 20:17, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
I may be wrong, but doesn't "reduces 2 cases of colon cancer to 1 case if you treat 6,000 people for five years" mean that the absolute risk reduction in this case is actually 1/6000 (i.e. 0.00017), rather than "0.003 fewer cases per person, using the colon cancer example above" as claimed under this heading? I have a sneaking suspicious that this article was written by a doctor.... ;-) 195.89.26.224 ( talk) 12:48, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
I could be wrong, but wouldn't CER − EER = 40% - 10% = positive 30% ?
I believe the textbook Basic Epidemiology describes ARR as Risk Difference, and states "The risk difference, also called excess risk, is the difference in rates of occurrence between exposed and unexposed groups". This would make the correct equation EER- CER and therefore 10% - 40% = (-)30%.
This would make the answer equal the one found in the table.
The textbook can be found at http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2006/9241547073_eng.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.224.89.189 ( talk) 13:14, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Why does the NNT in the work example table have "< 0: number needed to treat" when a number needed to treat is a positive number? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.161.242.83 ( talk) 06:22, 10 April 2012 (UTC)