Citation

Redelmeier DA, Yarnell CJ. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 2011; 65(5): 467-473.

Affiliation

Department of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; Clinical Epidemiology Program, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences, Toronto, ON, Canada; Injury Prevention Program, Sunnybrook Research Institute, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2011, Elsevier Publishing)

DOI

10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.09.007

PMID

22212528

Abstract

Clinical epidemiology studies are vulnerable to subtle confounding, leading skeptics to claim that an odds ratio below three rarely indicates a clinically important finding. We argue that such a high threshold is inappropriate when interpreting traffic death studies in clinical epidemiology research. We review 10 concepts that emphasize the value of modest effect sizes by taking into account the baseline frequency, nonfatal disability, numbers needed to treat, shared responsibility, event diversity, behavioral offsets, measurement error, indirect reinforcement, delayed progression, and economic affordability. An awareness of these concepts may help when interpreting effect sizes in studies of traffic deaths.

Language: en