The above question is a prevalence question. If the prevalence of disease is high (and assuming that the disease is serious), we would consider ARR (=Risk in unexposed - Risk in treated ) versus RRR (Relative Risk Reduction) (=(Risk in unexposed/controls - Risk in exposed/cases)/Risk in unexposed/controls). But when do we consider RRR more favorably?
In relative risk reduction the Risk in unexposed is almost an EVENTUALITY. In this modern world, people don't risk to attempt any activity unless it Interest's them. The Drive to attempt something after knowing it is RISKY, is a pure "ignorance" or "forced compliance".
Attempting to align with forced is due to Basic NEED satisfaction reaching threshold lower limits..or EMOTIONAL needs threatened to Higher threshold limits...
A key issue is what is the suspected mechanism. If the magnitude of the increased risk due to the risk factor is related to underlying risk, for example cholesterol in heart disease, relative risk reduction is more accurate because it will be similar, and therefore generalizable, across all patients. Absolute risk reduction will vary across patients, depending on underlying risk. If the magnitude of the increased risk due to the risk factor isindependent of underlying risk, for example a drug that causes fulminant hepatic failure, the risk is additive and absolute risk reduction is more accurate because it will be similar across patients while relative risk reduction will vary across subjects according to their underlying risk.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Medicine
- Oncology
- Cancer Research
- Cancer Biology