Abstract
Objective: To describe new measures of risk from case-control and cohort studies, which are simple to understand and relate to numbers of the population at risk.
Design: Theoretical development of new measures of risk.
Setting: Review of literature and previously described measures.
Main results: The new measures are: (1) the population impact number (PIN), the number of those in the whole population among whom one case is attributable to the exposure or risk factor (this is equivalent to the reciprocal of the population attributable risk); (2) the case impact number (CIN) the number of people with the disease or outcome for whom one case will be attributable to the exposure or risk factor (this is equivalent to the reciprocal of the population attributable fraction); (3) the exposure impact number (EIN) the number of people with the exposure among whom one excess case is attributable to the exposure (this is equivalent to the reciprocal of the attributable risk); (4) the exposed cases impact number (ECIN) the number of exposed cases among whom one case is attributable to the exposure (this is equivalent to the reciprocal of the aetiological fraction). The impact number reflects the number of people in each population (the whole population, the cases, all those exposed, and the exposed cases) among whom one case is attributable to the particular risk factor.
Conclusions: These new measures should help communicate the impact on a population, of estimates of risk derived from cohort or case-control studies.
Full Text
The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (180.3 KB).
Selected References
These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.
- Altman D. G. Confidence intervals for the number needed to treat. BMJ. 1998 Nov 7;317(7168):1309–1312. doi: 10.1136/bmj.317.7168.1309. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Aronson J. An/atomy. BMJ. 2000 Oct 14;321(7266):953–953. doi: 10.1136/bmj.321.7266.953. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Bjerre L. M., LeLorier J. Expressing the magnitude of adverse effects in case-control studies: "the number of patients needed to be treated for one additional patient to be harmed". BMJ. 2000 Feb 19;320(7233):503–506. doi: 10.1136/bmj.320.7233.503. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Doll R., Peto R. Mortality in relation to smoking: 20 years' observations on male British doctors. Br Med J. 1976 Dec 25;2(6051):1525–1536. doi: 10.1136/bmj.2.6051.1525. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Du X., Cruickshank K., McNamee R., Saraee M., Sourbutts J., Summers A., Roberts N., Walton E., Holmes S. Case-control study of stroke and the quality of hypertension control in north west England. BMJ. 1997 Jan 25;314(7076):272–276. doi: 10.1136/bmj.314.7076.272. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Heller R. F., Dobson A. J. Disease impact number and population impact number: population perspectives to measures of risk and benefit. BMJ. 2000 Oct 14;321(7266):950–953. doi: 10.1136/bmj.321.7266.950. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Lesaffre E., Pledger G. A note on the number needed to treat. Control Clin Trials. 1999 Oct;20(5):439–447. doi: 10.1016/s0197-2456(99)00018-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Miettinen O. S. Proportion of disease caused or prevented by a given exposure, trait or intervention. Am J Epidemiol. 1974 May;99(5):325–332. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a121617. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]