![]() ![]() To not sweat the details, and just think of it as a relative risk (basically, the way I just explained it to a medical student). Otherwise, I don't know if you can do better than the definition: the odds of an event in one population compared with the odds of the event in another population, where, if p is the probability of the event, odds = p / (1 – p).Īnd lastly, how would you explain it concisely to someone with a 7th grade reading level (like the prototypical medical patient)? If this is the case, the risk ratio 1, the risk difference 0, and the excess relative risk 0. Secondly, what is the easiest way to think about OR intuitively?Īs stated above, if the incidence is low, you can think of the OR as the RR. Excess Relative Risk (RR-1) x 100 The 'Null' Values The null value is to the measure of association when the incidence is the same in the groups being compared. Furthermore, they are numerically close when the incidence of the disease is low, so, often, there is no reason to give a second thought to whether the reported result is an OR or an RR. And they are more similar than not: both range from 0 to infinity, with a null value of 1, so their practical interpretations are similar. RR and OR are measuring essentially the same thing-the relative "likelihood" of an event-so they are equally valid. First, what statistically determines whether you have to use a RR vs an OR (I understand the use of OR in logit but don't know why it has to be used elsewhere)? ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |