Cleverly done! I have to say, despite my advanced degree eddication, I most often get cross-eyed when looking at stats and charts--but as you note, the big picture is useful on its own.
In terms of absolute vs relative risk, I'll offer a story: a friend who hates to fly related a long ago exchange with her mother (midwestern, so using the euphemism "to go"):
Mom: "C, flying is really safe. it's really, really unlikely it's going to be your time to go."
"C, replying: "Yes, but what if it the pilot's time to go?!"
Interesting look at RRR, ARR and NNT and have a link to an excellent video in MedCram. Sometimes, in the case of anti-vaxxers, are fond of using ARR without understanding it. Misleading claims seen around the media like this one: "The Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine was only ever 0.86 per cent effective - not 95 per cent as claimed by the pharmaceutical company.The Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine was only ever 0.86 per cent effective - not 95 per cent as claimed by the pharmaceutical company." https://www.aap.com.au/factcheck/pfizer-vaccine-claim-misleads-on-efficacy-measures/
Hi Grace - I messed up my reply to your comment so I’m going to copy and paste it, and my reply, below. Thanks for stopping by :)
Comment - This is so chock full of good stuff I need to come back and comment later, so just a quick thank you! Practicing my ninja moves with the next headline I see, and guessing I’ll need to click on the source study and dig a little past the top line numbers reported. The WHI/hormone replacement graph is stunning. Such treatment abandonment likely a result of fear and potential for lawsuits rather than fair risk assessments?
~
Me - I think you are correct - it’s sad but doctors cannot rely on evidence based protection against malpractice claims, judged as we are by juries of laypeople. It is a lot easier for the lawyers we see on billboards to appeal to emotions, outrage, and dollars than any fair assessment of risks/benefits/chance.
I hope the relative versus absolute risk idea is helpful. I’m certainly not the first to write about it, but I might be the first to invoke ninja training to illustrate how difficult yet stealthily effective this math can be 😉
ARR, RRR, NNT, and the severity of the illness being addressed with the tx all very helpful. Then you come down to more subjective considerations such as potential side effects, ease/difficulty/cost of tx ( eg: a one time vax vs a daily injection ). Marty
Cleverly done! I have to say, despite my advanced degree eddication, I most often get cross-eyed when looking at stats and charts--but as you note, the big picture is useful on its own.
In terms of absolute vs relative risk, I'll offer a story: a friend who hates to fly related a long ago exchange with her mother (midwestern, so using the euphemism "to go"):
Mom: "C, flying is really safe. it's really, really unlikely it's going to be your time to go."
"C, replying: "Yes, but what if it the pilot's time to go?!"
Interesting look at RRR, ARR and NNT and have a link to an excellent video in MedCram. Sometimes, in the case of anti-vaxxers, are fond of using ARR without understanding it. Misleading claims seen around the media like this one: "The Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine was only ever 0.86 per cent effective - not 95 per cent as claimed by the pharmaceutical company.The Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine was only ever 0.86 per cent effective - not 95 per cent as claimed by the pharmaceutical company." https://www.aap.com.au/factcheck/pfizer-vaccine-claim-misleads-on-efficacy-measures/
Hi Grace - I messed up my reply to your comment so I’m going to copy and paste it, and my reply, below. Thanks for stopping by :)
Comment - This is so chock full of good stuff I need to come back and comment later, so just a quick thank you! Practicing my ninja moves with the next headline I see, and guessing I’ll need to click on the source study and dig a little past the top line numbers reported. The WHI/hormone replacement graph is stunning. Such treatment abandonment likely a result of fear and potential for lawsuits rather than fair risk assessments?
~
Me - I think you are correct - it’s sad but doctors cannot rely on evidence based protection against malpractice claims, judged as we are by juries of laypeople. It is a lot easier for the lawyers we see on billboards to appeal to emotions, outrage, and dollars than any fair assessment of risks/benefits/chance.
I hope the relative versus absolute risk idea is helpful. I’m certainly not the first to write about it, but I might be the first to invoke ninja training to illustrate how difficult yet stealthily effective this math can be 😉
ARR, RRR, NNT, and the severity of the illness being addressed with the tx all very helpful. Then you come down to more subjective considerations such as potential side effects, ease/difficulty/cost of tx ( eg: a one time vax vs a daily injection ). Marty