Manara - Qatar Research Repository
Browse
1/1
2 files

Controversy and Debate: Questionable utility of the relative risk in clinical research: Paper 1: A call for change to practice

Version 2 2023-10-11, 09:22
Version 1 2023-10-03, 06:53
journal contribution
revised on 2023-10-11, 09:21 and posted on 2023-10-11, 09:22 authored by Suhail A. Doi, Luis Furuya-Kanamori, Chang Xu, Lifeng Lin, Tawanda Chivese, Lukman Thalib

Background and Objectives

In clinical trials, the relative risk or risk ratio (RR) is a mainstay of reporting of the effect magnitude for an intervention. The RR is the ratio of the probability of an outcome in an intervention group to its probability in a control group. Thus, the RR provides a measure of change in the likelihood of an event linked to a given intervention. This measure has been widely used because it is today considered a measure with “portability” across varying outcome prevalence, especially when the outcome is rare. It turns out, however, that there is a much more important problem with this ratio, and this paper aims to demonstrate this problem.

Methods

We used mathematical derivation to determine if the RR is a measure of effect magnitude alone (i.e., a larger absolute value always indicating a stronger effect) or not. We also used the same derivation to determine its relationship to the prevalence of an outcome. We confirm the derivation results with a follow-up analysis of 140,620 trials scraped from the Cochrane.

Results

We demonstrate that the RR varies for reasons other than the magnitude of the effect because it is a ratio of two posterior probabilities, both of which are dependent on baseline prevalence of an outcome. In addition, we demonstrate that the RR shifts toward its null value with increasing outcome prevalence. The shift toward the null happens regardless of the strength of the association between intervention and outcome. The odds ratio (OR), the other commonly used ratio, measures solely the effect magnitude and has no relationship to the prevalence of an outcome in a study nor does it overestimate the RR as is commonly thought.

Conclusions

The results demonstrate the need to (1) end the primary use of the RR in clinical trials and meta-analyses as its direct interpretation is not meaningful, (2) replace the RR by the OR, and (3) only use the postintervention risk recalculated from the OR for any expected level of baseline risk in absolute terms for purposes of interpretation such as the number needed to treat. These results will have far-reaching implications such as reducing misleading results from clinical trials and meta-analyses and ushering in a new era in the reporting of such trials or meta-analyses in practice.

Other Information

Published in: Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
See article on publisher's website: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.08.019

Funding

Open Access funding provided by the Qatar National Library

History

Language

  • English

Publisher

Elsevier

Publication Year

  • 2020

License statement

This Item is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License

Institution affiliated with

  • Qatar University
  • Qatar University Health - QU
  • College of Medicine - QU HEALTH
  • College of Health Sciences - QU HEALTH

Usage metrics

    Qatar University

    Licence

    Exports

    RefWorks
    BibTeX
    Ref. manager
    Endnote
    DataCite
    NLM
    DC