Talk:Relative risk

message: BrendanH: this encyclopedia has credibility problems as it is, without you adding to the problem by giving Steven Milloy the soubriquet of "tobacco lobbyist". Steve Milloy is a biostatistician. If this wiki needs anything, it needs tasteless innuendo against people, who are not here to defend themselves, to be removed. If you don't like his politics, take it to him personally and keep it off Wikipedia.
:I didn't introduce the term -- check the history. Moreover, it is factually correct, so I object to its removal by an anonymous contributor. As for being a biostatistician, I can believe he has training in that discipline but it seems to me he is primarily a communicator, producing funded PR from an industry perspective. I've made enough reactive changes to this article for today so I'll leave it for now, but it certainly seems to me that "tobacco lobbyist" is more appropriate than "biostatistician". BrendanH 20:00, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I deleted the description altogether. Milloy's work as a tobacco lobbyist is amply demonstrated by the linked article, so no real need to refer to it here, I guess. JQ 20:20, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm puzzled by this contribution to discussion. The description of Milloy as a tobacco lobbyist was deleted as unnecessary eight months ago, so why are you piling on now? JQ 02:02, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  He is now referred to as "the "Junk Science" commentator for FoxNews.com" not a "Biostatistician" (when you follow the link). Is being labelled "Fox News" infinitely better than being labelled "tobacco lobbyist"? To most people of a liberal bent, the "Fox News" label is meant to infer a lack of credibility. I suspect this is known and that's why it is used instead of his professional title. I realise this is probably more relevant on Milloy's page than here. Mixino1 12:48, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is his description because that's what he does for a living and what brings him to public prominence. Having, say, a physics degree does not make you a physicist, and neither does have a degree in biostatistics make you a biostatician. But, as you say, this is more relevant on Milloy's page. As regards credibility I'd say Milloy does more to detract from Fox's than vice versa.  He scores a highly negative mention in Fox News Channel controversies.  JQ 20:36, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Another ad hominem attack to defend an ad hominem attack. You are clearly scraping the barrel. Mixino1 21:16, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ad hominem titles 

message: I've felt unhappy about the list of "effects" from Science for a long time, because I think it exemplifies the problem of taking isolated results out of context. Small significant effects are important when they are (i) part of a well conducted analysis (proper controls, good measurement etc), (ii) have a good theoretical rationale, and (iii) are replicated in other analyses. The list seems arbitrary and some of the observed effects obviously need to be analysed more closely to see if there actually is a causal chain linking the effect to the outcome. 
So I've deleted it. BrendanH 09:47, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough. I moved all this stuff out of John Brignell, where it was part of a side debate there. I thought the Wikipedia process would deal with it appropriately and in due course. JQ 10:15, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  No offense to John, but I think it was a good edit.  Nephron 00:49, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  No offence taken :-) JQ 06:10, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion 

message: This article was up for a Request for Mediation.  The request was rejected (see RFM archive - entry for RR). Nephron  T|C 02:02, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for Mediation 

message: In the section titled "Size of relative risk and relevance", I come across the text Critics of the standard approach.... But the "standard approach" has not been defined or even mentioned elsewhere in the article so I am left scratching my head. One may infer from the following text that the "standard approach" does not require that the point estimate of RR should exceed 2, I suppose? It should be stated explicitly. What exactly does the standard approach require? --Yath 03:05, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree. This is deliberately vague. It is meant to appear like there is a standardised approach used by epidemiologists and statisticians. The reason it is vague is because the Relative Risk level that publications find acceptable has fallen markedly over the last 10-15 years. This really has more to do with the drive to make passive smoking look like a risk rather than any improvement in the precision of the methodology used. It should really say something like "The modern use of relative risks close to one is criticised by...".  Mixino1 13:28, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please define "standard approach" 

message: Is anyone able to tell me where I can find more information about this statement: "The log of relative risk is usually taken to have a sampling distribution that has an approximately normal distribution?"  I am talking about relative risk in my senior thesis and am at a stand still until I can get proof of this statement. Any information about the distribution of relative risk would be helpful. Thank you. --Joyo711 16:58, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a modelling assumption rather than a statement that can be proved true in general. You may find it useful to look at Logistic regression where the log-odds ratio is the LHS of a standard linear model, for which we usually assume that errors are (approximately) normal. There are various tests of normality that can be applied, maybe a text on limited dependent variables would say which is best here. Hope this helps.JQ 03:07, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question about "The log of relative risk ... has an approximately normal distribution" 

message: According to it's own page, "attributable risk is the difference in rate of a condition between an exposed population and an unexposed population."  This should be EE/ES - CE/CS in the table, EE/ES being the rate of the condition (event) in the exposed (experimental) group, and CE/CS being the rate of the condition in the unexposed (control) group.  As it stands [EE/(EE+CE) - EN/(EN+CN)], it looks more like the difference in the rate of exposure between all events and all non-events, and I'm not sure what that even is.  I can't figure out how to edit that table.  Can someone please change that?  It is pretty confusing if you are just starting to learn these terms.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crackles (talk • contribs) 04:14, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It was fixed by deprecated the term "attributable risk" altogether, as it is ambiguous. Psarka (talk) 20:26, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attibutable risk in the table 

message: Hello,
I've added at the end of this section:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relative_risk#Statistical_significance_.28confidence.29_and_relative_risk
The description of the estimate of the SE of RR, but I didn't format it properly, could someone please help with that? Talgalili (talk) 19:44, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please help with the Latex ? 

message: "Together with risk difference and odds ratio, relative risk measures the association between the exposure and the outcome.[1]" Shouldn't hazard ratio also be included here? (If so, preferably, a source would be added along with it.) SSSheridan (talk) 07:53, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hazard ratio