Reporting the findings: Absolute vs relative risk

Why you should always use absolute risk numbers:

“New drug cuts heart attack risk in half.”

Sounds like a great drug, huh?

Yet it sounds significantly less great when you realize we’re actually talking about a 2% risk dropping to a 1% risk. The risk halved, but in a far less impressive fashion.

That’s why absolute numbers matter: They provide readers with enough information to determine the true size of the benefit. In more detail:

Risk is a common health news topic. A news story may discuss the risk of developing an illness–or the risk of developing a side effect of a treatment. Or it may discuss the reduced risk seen from a new intervention.

If the 5-year risk for heart attack is 2 in 100 (2%) in a group of patients treated conventionally and 1 in 100 (1%) in patients treated with the new drug, the absolute difference is derived by simply subtracting the two risks: 2% – 1% = 1%.

Expressed as an absolute difference, the new drug reduces the 5-year risk for heart attack by 1 percentage point.

The relative difference is the ratio of the two risks. Given the data above, the relative difference is:

1% ÷ 2% = 50%

Expressed as a relative difference, the new drug reduces the risk for heart attack by half.

Steve Woloshin and Lisa Schwartz of the Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy & Clinical Practice
explain absolute-relative risk in a creative way. They say that knowing only the relative data is like having a 50% off coupon for selected items at a department store. But you don’t know if the coupon applies to a diamond necklace or to a pack of chewing gum. Only by knowing what the coupon’s true value is–the absolute data–does the 50% have any meaning.

A good example of reporting risks

In our review of a STAT story on new aspirin guidelines, we praised them for using both absolute and relative numbers. Here’s what the story said:

In a meta-analysis of the six major randomized trials of aspirin for primary prevention, among more than 95,000 participants, serious cardiovascular events occurred in 0.51 percent of participants taking aspirin and 0.57 percent of those not taking aspirin. That corresponds to a 20 percent relative reduction in risk. At the same time, serious bleeding events increased from 0.07 percent among non-aspirin takers to 0.10 percent among those taking aspirin, or a 40 percent relative increase in risk.

This inclusion of absolute numbers helps readers get a much better sense of the overall differences we’re talking about here.

[Editor’s note: as discussed in the comments on this piece, it appears that the relative reduction in risk of cardiovascular events was actually 10.5% in the example above rather than 20% as stated in the STAT story. In addition, it would have been even more informative for the STAT story to express the absolute percentages as a rate — e.g. the rate of cardiovascular events went from 57 per ten thousand to 51 per ten thousand, which is an absolute reduction of 6 per ten thousand (or a 10.5% relative reduction). The absolute risk of a bleed, by contrast, increased by 3/10,000 (or a 42.9% relative increase). In this case, the comparison of the absolute benefits (reduced cardiovascular events) of 6/10,000 to the harms (bleeds) of 3/10,000 is much more informative than to say there was a 10% reduction in events and a 43% increase in bleeds. The relative numbers make the increase bleeds look bigger than the reduction in cardiovascular events, but expressing the numbers as an absolute rate makes it clear that the reduction in events was larger.]

And a not-so-good example

In our review of a news release from the National Institutes of Health, we called them out for only using relative risk reductions from a study about intensive blood pressure management. 

The release points out that those study participants whose blood pressure goal was 120 mm of mercury had 33 percent fewer cardiovascular events, such as heart attacks or heart failure, and had a 32 percent reduction in the risk of death, compared to those participants with a higher goal.

But these numbers don’t tell the whole story. It should be noted that these relative reductions correspond with absolute risk reductions of only about 0.8 to 1.3 percentage points — reflecting a number needed to treat (NNT) of roughly 100. In other words, approximately 100 people need to be treated to this target in order for 1 person to experience an improved outcome. The other 99 don’t benefit but have the potential to experience adverse effects.

The problem often starts at the research level

While absolute numbers are essential, they also may be hard to find. Research has shown that they’re often missing from study abstracts in medical journals, according to the Harding Center for Risk Literacy. The relative figures then find their way into news releases, health pamphlets and in news stories, the center explains, which only tells part of the picture.

When this happens, the onus is on the journalist to push for absolute numbers from the researchers, or get help from a third-party expert to assist with the calculation. While this adds more work, it is significantly more informative and helps diminish misleading claims.

More: Harding director Gerd Gigerenzer argues this is a moral issue.

Watch out for ‘mismatched framing,’ too

The problem doesn’t end there, though. The Harding Center also reported that medical journals often publish studies that have what’s known as “mismatched framing:” The benefits are presented in relative terms, while the harms or side effects are presented in absolute terms. Why?

“The absolute risk looks small, so it gets used for the side effects,” said Harding’s head research scientist, Mirjam Jenny. “I think that is very much on purpose–I don’t think that happens by accident.”

In other words, study authors want the benefits to look bigger and the harms to look smaller. This mismatched framing often gets picked up by journalists who report on the study. Yet it’s the patient who much make decisions based on this lopsided information.

The bottom line

Absolute risk vs relative risk: Each may be accurate. But one may be terribly misleading.  If your job is marketing manager for the new drug, you are likely to only use the relative risk reduction. If your job is journalist, you would serve your readers and viewers better by pointing out the absolute risk reduction, and making sure you don’t echo any mismatched framing.

And if you’re a news consumer or health care consumer, it’s wise for you to be skeptical and ask “of what?” anytime you hear an effect size of 20-30-40-50% or more.  50% of what?  That’s how you get to the absolute truth.

See much more of our coverage on the importance of using absolute rates.

Return to our toolkit for more tips.

Comments (7)

We Welcome Comments. But please note: We will delete comments left by anyone who doesn’t leave an actual first and last name and an actual email address.

We will delete comments that include personal attacks, unfounded allegations, unverified facts, product pitches, or profanity. We will also end any thread of repetitive comments. Comments should primarily discuss the quality (or lack thereof) in journalism or other media messages about health and medicine. This is not intended to be a forum for definitive discussions about medicine or science. Nor is it a forum to share your personal story about a disease or treatment -- your comment must relate to media messages about health care. If your comment doesn't adhere to these policies, we won't post it. Questions? Please see more on our comments policy.


October 27, 2015 at 8:34 am

The Journalist’s editor would create a headline w/ the Relative Risk to get eyeballs on the story (which equates to money). The journalist would then be able to tell the rest of the story in the article (true value to the consumer).


    Gary Schwitzer

    October 27, 2015 at 9:26 am

    Yes, if only it happened that way.


Laura Goodson

January 17, 2017 at 1:02 pm

Thank you so much for this article. A relative risk statement, especially without listing sources, can cause harm to readers and I see it everywhere! In my opinion this should be a front page headline!


    Stephen Cox, MD

    January 17, 2017 at 6:06 pm

    Yes, Laura, it should also be a front page headline for editors and authors of medical journals as well. Even respected journals do not make it clear that the findings are relative rather than absolute. This breeds cynicism and mistrust.



January 17, 2017 at 7:20 pm

In the aspirin example, shouldn’t the drop of 57 per thousand to 51 per thousand be a decrease of only 10.5% and not 20? Relative risk of not taking aspirin seems a lot less.


    Kevin Lomangino

    January 18, 2017 at 10:09 am


    My back-of-the-envelope calculations agree with yours. It’s possible the researcher quoted in the story miscalculated. I’ll check with our story reviewers to see if any of them can get to the bottom of it.

    Kevin Lomangino
    Managing Editor


      Kevin Lomangino

      January 18, 2017 at 3:30 pm


      After conferring with our reviewers, we agree that the absolute difference between the two arms is 0.06% which can be expressed as a 10.5% relative risk reduction or an 11.7% relative risk increase. The 20% seems to be a mistake. However we note that you said there was a drop in risk from 57 per thousand to 51 per thousand, which does not appear to be correct. An absolute risk of .57 % means 0.0057 and a risk of .51 % means 0.0051. That is an absolute reduction of 0.0006 or 6 per ten thousand and a relative reduction of .0006/.0057 =6/57 =10.5%. The added risk of a bleed was 42.9% or 3/10,000. In this case, the comparison of the absolute benefits (reduced cvd events) of 6/10000 to the harms (bleeds) of 3/10000 is much more informative than to say there was a 10% reduction in cvd events and a 43% increase in bleeds.

      Just some additional context that we thought you might appreciate.

      Kevin Lomangino
      Managing Editor