NOTE TO READERS: When this project lost substantial funding at the end of 2018, I lost the ability to continue publishing criteria-driven news story reviews and PR news release reviews - once the bread-and-butter of the site going back to 2006. The 3,200 archived reviews, while still educational, are getting old and difficult for me to technically maintain on the back end of the website. So I am announcing that I plan to remove these reviews from the site by April 1, 2021. The blog and the toolkit - two of the most popular features on the site - will remain. If you wish to peruse the reviews before they disappear, please do so by the end of March 2021. After that date you may still be able to access them via the Internet Archive Wayback Machine - https://archive.org/web/.

Absolute vs. relative risk: an overlooked statistic

Posted By

Tags

I teach my classes – even undergrads – that if I could change just one thing about the way in which research news is communicated to the public – for the sake of public understanding – it would be to include absolute risk/benefit data in each story or each message – not just relative risk/benefit data. On the HealthNewsReview.org website, we evaluate stories on whether they include absolute data. We also offer a brief primer on the topic. Failing to include absolute data may make the outcome seem much larger than it really is.

But even medical journals don’t do a good job of demanding that absolute data be included in article submissions, according to a review in this week’s BMJ. In it, Dartmouth/VA researchers looked at 222 articles over a year’s time in six journals: Annals of Internal Medicine, BMJ, Journal of the American Medical Association, Journal of the National Cancer Institute, Lancet, and New England Journal of Medicine.

They found that 68% of articles failed to report the underlying absolute risks in the abstract of the article, and half of these didn’t report absolute data anywhere in the article.

The authors’ conclusion: “Absolute risks are often not easily accessible in articles reporting ratio measures and sometimes are missing altogether—this lack of accessibility can easily exaggerate readers’ perceptions of benefit or harm.”

The relative inaccessibility of absolute data is no excuse for journalists. If you’re going to cover research news, you need to do it completely and correctly, and that includes getting at the absolute data – even if the journal article upon which you base your story doesn’t include such data. Journalists should demand it from researchers they cover, just as journals should demand it from researchers submitting articles.

You might also like

Comments

Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.

Comments are closed.