New reports often reports the relative risk or benefits between two groups (say a control group versus treatment group). \u00a0 This number is usually deceptively higher than the absolute risk or benefit.<\/p>\n
What is the difference between relative risk versus absolute risks?<\/p>\n
KnowBreastCancer.org<\/a> has a good explanation. \u00a0 Suppose that 2 person out of 100 in a control non-treated group ended up with cancer. \u00a0And supposed that only 1 person out of 100 in a treatment group ended up with cancer. \u00a0Hence the relative risk would be a 50% decrease in breast cancer in the treatment group. \u00a0This is arrived at by taking the change and dividing by the initial value: \u00a0(2 – 1) \/ 2 = 0.5 = 50% \u00a0 \u00a0This is the number often reported. \u00a0 Sounds pretty good right?<\/p>\n But consider the absolute risk. \u00a0 Since the risk of cancer is 2% in the non-treated group, and the risk of cancer in the treated group is 1%, the treatment only reduced the risk from 2% to 1%. \u00a0This is only a 1% reduction in absolute risk. \u00a0Now it doesn’t sound that great. \u00a0 This number is arrived at by taking the change in percentage divided by the overall percentage: (2-1)\/100 = 0.01 = 1%.<\/p>\n Presentation by Sally Fallon-Morell<\/a> also gives examples of how distorting the reports of relative risk are. \u00a0Video presentation on YouTube<\/a>.<\/p>\n Tom Naughton is a comedian that did a bit at the Ancestral Health Symposium called “Science for Smart People” in which among the other topics talked about relative risk versus absolute risk…<\/p>\n