Quote:
Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
No. You are fully capable of clicking the surgeon general report and reading it for yourself. (hint: go to chapter seven http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/librar...t/chapter7.pdf) And the way that the studies are usually weighed, it's in terms of your increased risk compared to the control population. So a non-smoker in Japan who lives with a smoker has a 1.9 increased chance of getting lung cancer than she would have had she not lived with the smoker, that risk is readjusted to 1.3 when other factors (such as diet) are taken into account.
|
RT -
When you wrote this, why didn't you use the term "relative risk." That is what the 1.9 figure is, isn't it? Isn't it "relative risk" of 1.9, or did I read it wrong?
SD
"As a general rule of thumb, we are looking for a relative risk of 3 or more before accepting a paper for publication." - Marcia Angell, editor of the New England Journal of Medicine"
"My basic rule is if the relative risk isn't at least 3 or 4, forget it." - Robert Temple, director of drug evaluation at the Food and Drug Administration.
"Relative risks of less than 2 are considered small and are usually difficult to interpret. Such increases may be due to chance, statistical bias, or the effect of confounding factors that are sometimes not evident." - The National Cancer Institute
"An association is generally considered weak if the odds ratio [relative risk] is under 3.0 and particularly when it is under 2.0, as is the case in the relationship of ETS and lung cancer." - Dr. Kabat, IAQC epidemiologist
