Studies have shown an association between disc hemorrhage and glaucoma progression and clinically we have been taught to be more aggressive treatment-wise when we note this
At what odds ratio becomes a risk factor a definite sign? What makes an acceptable endpoint? I feel this must depend on the setting (e.g. whether you deal with an individual patient where you have less data and greater uncertainty, and a different strategy for managing risk - or in a clinical trial where a harder criterion may be appropriate). Is it all just a matter of magnitude?