Use of relative and absolute effect measures in reporting health inequalities: structured review

Nicholas B. King · Sam B. Harper · Meredith E Young

249 citations0/0 files storedBMJ

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Meta-analysis and systematic reviews Advanced Causal Inference Techniques Statistical Methods in Epidemiology

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To examine the frequency of reporting of absolute and relative effect measures in health inequalities research. DESIGN: Structured review of selected general medical and public health journals. DATA SOURCES: 344 articles published during 2009 in American Journal of Epidemiology, American Journal of Public Health, BMJ, Epidemiology, International Journal of Epidemiology, JAMA, Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, The Lancet, The New England Journal of Medicine, and Social Science and Medicine. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Frequency and proportion of studies reporting absolute effect measures, relative effect measures, or both in abstract and full text; availability of absolute risks in studies reporting only relative effect measures. RESULTS: 40% (138/344) of articles reported a measure of effect in the abstract; among these, 88% (122/138) reported only a relative measure, 9% (13/138) reported only an absolute measure, and 2% (3/138) reported both. 75% (258/344) of all articles reported only relative measures in the full text; among these, 46% (119/258) contained no information on absolute baseline risks that would facilitate calculation of absolute effect measures. 18% (61/344) of all articles reported only absolute measures in the full text, and 7% (25/344) reported both absolute and relative measures. These results were consistent across journals, exposures, and outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Health inequalities are most commonly reported using only relative measures of effect, which may influence readers' judgments of the magnitude, direction, significance, and implications of reported health inequalities.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 249 citations exist upstream.

References

2010CONSORT 2010 Statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials 2007Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE): Explanation and Elaboration 2010CONSORT 2010 Statement: Updated Guidelines for Reporting Parallel Group Randomized Trials 2011The Social Determinants of Health: Coming of Age 1997Measuring the magnitude of socio-economic inequalities in health: An overview of available measures illustrated with two examples from Europe 1997Socioeconomic inequalities in morbidity and mortality in western Europe 1997Socioeconomic inequalities in morbidity and mortality in western Europe 2002Policy Implications Of The Gradient Of Health And Wealth

Cited by

2015The Health Effects of Income Inequality: Averages and Disparities 2014The impact of NHS resource allocation policy on health inequalities in England 2001-11: longitudinal ecological study 2019Gender differences in grant and personnel award funding rates at the Canadian Institutes of Health Research based on research content area: A retrospective analysis 2021Changes in the behavioural determinants of health during the COVID-19 pandemic: gender, socioeconomic and ethnic inequalities in five British cohort studies

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.