Talk:Attributable risk
 | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Worked example
[edit]Is the formula for attributable risk that is used in the worked example cited in one of the references? It doesn't seem to be mentioned anywhere until it is used in the worked example.
The first reference on the page (<ref name="bmj">"Epidemiology for the uninitiated: 3. Comparing disease rates". Retrieved 2011-01-05.</ref>) gives the equation Attributable risk = rate of disease in unexposed persons × ( relative risk − 1) which works out as the same as the absolute risk reduction/increase. Is this reference wrong? In which case, is there a reference for the proper formula? Or are attributable risk and absolute risk reduction/increase equivalent? In which case, what is shown as attributable risk in the worked example? Mgp28 (talk) 21:38, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- Is the worked example formula for Population attributable risk? If so, should the variable be renamed and have the abbreviation PAR? Mgp28 (talk) 23:19, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- ARR and attributable risk are the same thing, worked example at the bottom is incorrect. What is shown as attributable risk in the worked example is actuallty the increased likelyhood that the subject will have been from the exposed group if the results show that an event happened. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.202.70.68 (talk) 12:31, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Fractional attributable risk
[edit]I came across the term "fractional attributable risk" used in relation to climate studies [1]. Google seems to indicate that this terms is used solely by climatologists[2]. Is this the same thing as is being discussed here, or does it deserve a page of its own? Derek Andrews (talk) 15:58, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Etiologic fraction
[edit]The formula for etiologic fraction does not make any sense? It is defined through absolute numbers and says nothing about causality. Should it not be (rate of illness in the affected population minus the rate in the unaffected)/ the rate in the affected? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.236.52.237 (talk) 22:45, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
- I agree. I am goin to take it out. Maybe User:Mikael_Häggström wants to comment, since he is the one who put this in. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 13:53, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
- I have no objection to it. Mikael Häggström (talk) 15:13, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
typo
[edit]I'm not sure how to properly correct "exposennd" (first line) so I leave it to the pros. --Kolya (talk) 09:05, 27 May 2019 (UTC)