Skip to main content
NCBI home page
CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association Journal logoLink to CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association Journal
. 1995 Feb 1;152(3):351–357.

Basic statistics for clinicians: 3. Assessing the effects of treatment: measures of association.

R Jaeschke 1, G Guyatt 1, H Shannon 1, S Walter 1, D Cook 1, N Heddle 1
PMCID: PMC1337533  PMID: 7828099

Abstract

In the third of a series of four articles the authors show the calculation of measures of association and discuss their usefulness in clinical decision making. From the rates of death or other "events" in experimental and control groups in a clinical trial, we can calculate the relative risk (RR) of the event after the experimental treatment, expressed as a percentage of the risk without such treatment. The absolute risk reduction (ARR) is the difference in the risk of an event between the groups. The relative risk reduction is the percentage of the baseline risk (the risk of an event in the control patients) removed as a result of therapy. The odds ratio (OR), which is the measure of choice in case-control studies, gives the ratio of the odds of an event in the experimental group to those in the control group. The OR and the RR provide limited information in reporting the results of prospective trials because they do not reflect changes in the baseline risk. The ARR and the number needed to treat, which tells the clinician how many patients need to be treated to prevent one event, reflect both the baseline risk and the relative risk reduction. If the timing of events is important--to determine whether treatment extends life, for example--survival curves are used to show when events occur over time.

Full text

PDF
351

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Bobbio M., Demichelis B., Giustetto G. Completeness of reporting trial results: effect on physicians' willingness to prescribe. Lancet. 1994 May 14;343(8907):1209–1211. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(94)92407-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Bucher H. C., Weinbacher M., Gyr K. Influence of method of reporting study results on decision of physicians to prescribe drugs to lower cholesterol concentration. BMJ. 1994 Sep 24;309(6957):761–764. doi: 10.1136/bmj.309.6957.761. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Callahan C. M., Dittus R. S., Katz B. P. Oral corticosteroid therapy for patients with stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. A meta-analysis. Ann Intern Med. 1991 Feb 1;114(3):216–223. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-114-3-216. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Coldman A. J., Elwood J. M. Examining survival data. Can Med Assoc J. 1979 Oct 20;121(8):1065-8, 1071. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Davey Smith G., Pekkanen J. Should there be a moratorium on the use of cholesterol lowering drugs? BMJ. 1992 Feb 15;304(6824):431–434. doi: 10.1136/bmj.304.6824.431. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Forrow L., Taylor W. C., Arnold R. M. Absolutely relative: how research results are summarized can affect treatment decisions. Am J Med. 1992 Feb;92(2):121–124. doi: 10.1016/0002-9343(92)90100-p. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Guyatt G. H., Sackett D. L., Cook D. J. Users' guides to the medical literature. II. How to use an article about therapy or prevention. A. Are the results of the study valid? Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group. JAMA. 1993 Dec 1;270(21):2598–2601. doi: 10.1001/jama.270.21.2598. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Guyatt G. H., Sackett D. L., Cook D. J. Users' guides to the medical literature. II. How to use an article about therapy or prevention. B. What were the results and will they help me in caring for my patients? Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group. JAMA. 1994 Jan 5;271(1):59–63. doi: 10.1001/jama.271.1.59. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Laird N. M., Mosteller F. Some statistical methods for combining experimental results. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1990;6(1):5–30. doi: 10.1017/s0266462300008916. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Laupacis A., Sackett D. L., Roberts R. S. An assessment of clinically useful measures of the consequences of treatment. N Engl J Med. 1988 Jun 30;318(26):1728–1733. doi: 10.1056/NEJM198806303182605. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Naylor C. D., Chen E., Strauss B. Measured enthusiasm: does the method of reporting trial results alter perceptions of therapeutic effectiveness? Ann Intern Med. 1992 Dec 1;117(11):916–921. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-117-11-916. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Oxman A. D., Guyatt G. H. A consumer's guide to subgroup analyses. Ann Intern Med. 1992 Jan 1;116(1):78–84. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-116-1-78. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Stiegmann G. V., Goff J. S., Michaletz-Onody P. A., Korula J., Lieberman D., Saeed Z. A., Reveille R. M., Sun J. H., Lowenstein S. R. Endoscopic sclerotherapy as compared with endoscopic ligation for bleeding esophageal varices. N Engl J Med. 1992 Jun 4;326(23):1527–1532. doi: 10.1056/NEJM199206043262304. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Walter S. D., Marrett L. D., From L., Hertzman C., Shannon H. S., Roy P. The association of cutaneous malignant melanoma with the use of sunbeds and sunlamps. Am J Epidemiol. 1990 Feb;131(2):232–243. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a115493. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Yusuf S., Wittes J., Probstfield J., Tyroler H. A. Analysis and interpretation of treatment effects in subgroups of patients in randomized clinical trials. JAMA. 1991 Jul 3;266(1):93–98. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from CMAJ: Canadian Medical Association Journal are provided here courtesy of Canadian Medical Association

RESOURCES