6533b7dbfe1ef96bd1271543
RESEARCH PRODUCT
Relative risk rather than absolute risk reduction should be preferred to sensitise the public to preventive actions.
Marc BardouAlan N. BarkunAlan N. BarkunNicolas ChapelleMyriam Martelsubject
0301 basic medicineEstimationRiskeducation.field_of_studyActuarial scienceCancer preventionCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)PopulationGastroenterologyAbsolute risk reductionDiscount points03 medical and health sciences030104 developmental biology0302 clinical medicineIntervention (counseling)Relative riskHumans030211 gastroenterology & hepatologyeducationPsychologyNumbers Needed To Treatdescription
We thank Lawrence and colleagues1 for their interest in our work,2 about which they raised some comments as the need of expressing results in absolute rather than relative risks. As they appropriately mentioned in their correspondence, absolute risk is an important parameter for the estimation of the effect of an intervention and must sometimes be preferred to relative risk. However, when discussing with health professionals and policymakers, using absolute risk reductions, expressed as percentages, may incorrectly lead to an intervention being considered unnecessary. As example, what would be the point of reducing by 30% the occurrence of an event affecting 2% of the population? This is exactly what we were confronted to with the COVID-19 pandemic, when policymakers were criticised for putting in place measures to reduce individual freedoms, which were considered excessive in relation to the …
| year | journal | country | edition | language |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2021-04-02 | Gut |