Forums

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
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

shouldn't you consider number of exposed people in relation to a relative risk? like say the relative risk of unprotected sex with strangers is high. probably the number of people in that risk pool is relatively low- very low probably compared to the number in the risk pool for 2nd hand smoke.