Health Correlator: What is “relative risk” (RR)? The case of alcohol frequency and its impact on mortality from stroke
EXTRACT:
As for the issue of alcohol consumption frequency and mortality, I leave you with the results of a 2008 study by Breslow and Graubard, with more citations and published in a more targeted journal (4):
multiplied by frequency) appears to matter much more than quantity or
frequency alone. We can state this even more simply: drinking two
bottles of whiskey in one sitting, but only once every two weeks, is not
going to be good for you.
In the end, providing more information to readers so that they can place
the results in context is a matter of scientific honesty.
"This post is not really about the study by Rantakömi and colleagues. It is about the following question, which is in the title of this post:
What is “relative risk” (RR)? "
- Amazes me that scientist are still using RR as opposed to taking the (small) extra step to perform a bayesian analysis. It also amazes me that "Statistical Significance" is valued over "Practical Significance". Statistical significance is important, and always will be. However, presenting results that have no practical significance is just bad science. Show that you are smarter than the analytic software that spits out statistical significance. Show that you can interpret results and apply those results to the real world...
EXTRACT:
As for the issue of alcohol consumption frequency and mortality, I leave you with the results of a 2008 study by Breslow and Graubard, with more citations and published in a more targeted journal (4):
“Average volume obscured effects of quantity alone and frequency alone, particularly for cardiovascular disease in men where quantity and frequency trended in opposite directions.”In other words, alcohol consumption in terms of volume (quantity
multiplied by frequency) appears to matter much more than quantity or
frequency alone. We can state this even more simply: drinking two
bottles of whiskey in one sitting, but only once every two weeks, is not
going to be good for you.
In the end, providing more information to readers so that they can place
the results in context is a matter of scientific honesty.
