Biological Interpretation of Relative Risk
- 20 Downloads
There is widespread interest in assessing the clinical importance of a study result. This goal is impeded, however, by a lack of clarity about the biological interpretability of epidemiological effect measures, such as the relative risk. A relative risk is often interpreted merely as a measure of some vague statistical association, without a view toward a biological effect as an object of measurement. Not infrequently, if it is not statistically significant, the relative risk estimate is ignored completely.
A key to biological interpretation is appreciating the theoretical framework stipulating that outcome rates derived from 2 comparison groups actually represent measures of different effects in the same population. For instance, by using a placebo group to estimate the number of background cases that occurred in the treatment group, an estimate of the number of excess cases that occurred as a result of treatment can be made. This kind of biological entity can be derived from a relative risk, and can be more easily evaluated as to its clinical importance than a statistical association or a statement about statistical significance. Interpretation then becomes a more directed task, with a focus on the validity of certain ancillary hypotheses upon which biological interpretability rests.
KeywordsRelative Risk Adis International Limited Risk Ratio Causal Effect Risk Difference
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.Rubin DB. Neyman (1923) and causal inference in experiments and observational studies [comment]. Stat Sci 1990; 5: 472–80Google Scholar
- 8.Rothman KJ, Greenland S. Mod Epidemiol, Philadelphia: Lippincott-Raven, 1998: 58–62Google Scholar
- 10.Popper KR. The logic of scientific discovery. New York: Harper & Roe, 1968. [Originally published as Logik der Forschung. Vienna: Springer, 1934]Google Scholar
- 12.Morrison DE, Henkel RE, editors. The significance test controversy. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company, 1970Google Scholar
- 14.Salsburg DS. The religion of statistics as practiced in medical journals. Am Stat 1985; 39: 220–3Google Scholar