ライフサイエンスコーパス: absolute risk

1 risk), and infectious morbidity (1.0% excess absolute risk).

2 ber needed to treat: 25) due to their higher absolute risk.

3 ry prevention use epidemiologic estimates of absolute risk.

4 ctions for those patients at lower levels of absolute risk.

5 ity impact of such interventions in units of absolute risk.

6 mulative incidence of anal cancer to measure absolute risk.

7 calibration ensuring accurate prediction of absolute risk.

8 with age-specific death rates to get 20-year absolute risks.

9 der (HR = 1.07, 95% CI 0.84-1.35, p = 0.594, absolute risk = 0.3%).

10 s (HR, 11.05; 95% CI, 3.76-32.44; unadjusted absolute risk, 0.0235 events/person-years).

11 cantly greater risk of access-site bleeding (absolute risk, 0.4% vs. 0.3%; relative risk, 1.34; 95% C

12 d tricyclic or other cyclic antidepressants (absolute risk, 0.89 per 10000 person-months vs 0.48 per

13 io [HR] = 1.19, 95% CI 1.08-1.32, p < 0.001, absolute risk = 1.0%).

14 4 y (HR = 1.06, 95% CI 0.83-1.35, p = 0.666, absolute risk = 1.2%), or in those aged 45 y or older (H

15 4 y (HR = 1.20, 95% CI 0.95-1.52, p = 0.125, absolute risk = 1.6%), in those aged 35-44 y (HR = 1.06,

16 .06-4.36), but not of other antidepressants (absolute risk, 1.15 per 10000 person-months vs 1.12 per

17 n were alternative vascular-closure devices (absolute risk, 1.2% vs. 0.8%; relative risk, 1.59; 95% c

18 rrent use than former use of SSRIs or SNRIs (absolute risk, 1.29 per 10000 person-months vs 0.64 per

19 CI, 1.10 to 1.62; P=0.001) and transfusion (absolute risk, 1.8% vs. 1.5%; relative risk, 1.23; 95% C

20 [27.3%] vs. 72 of 615 [11.7%] participants; absolute risk, 15.6% [95% CI, 6.9% to 24.3%]; adjusted r

21 up vs 2.0 months in the BSC group (P = .03) (absolute risk, 18% vs 0% at 6 months).

22 < 0.001; 1 year: 24.8% vs. 22.0%; p < 0.001, absolute risk: 2.8%, relative risk: 12.7%).

23 dence ratio, 5.2; 95% CI, 4.6 to 5.8; excess absolute risk, 20.3/10,000 person-years).

24 4 y (HR = 1.43, 95% CI 1.19-1.73, p < 0.001, absolute risk = 3.0%).

25 did those in the reference highest quartile (absolute risk, 3.8%; hazard ratio, 1.65; 95% confidence

26 artile had a higher risk of ischemic stroke (absolute risk, 7.3%) than did those in the reference hig

27 ed only in patients with category 2 lesions (absolute risk, 9.6%).

28 onating), risk attributable to donation, and absolute risk (after donating) need to be considered.

29 duals could still be treated on the basis of absolute risk alone, the hybrid approach is evidence-bas

30 While absolute risk and cost-effectiveness should be considere

31 Adapting this improved model to estimate absolute risk and evaluating it in prospective data sets

32 The absolute risk and risk ratios relating preoperative clin

33 We report absolute risks and hazard ratios within the cohort from

34 The absolute risks and odds ratio (OR) of reactivation with

35 r subsequent cancer diagnoses and calculated absolute risks and standardized incidence ratios (SIRs).

36 s absolute risk), any morbidity (4.4% excess absolute risk), and infectious morbidity (1.0% excess ab

37 ulated standardized incidence ratios, excess absolute risks, and cumulative incidences.

38 with increased 30-day mortality (3.6% excess absolute risk), any morbidity (4.4% excess absolute risk

39 idelines recommends a different equation for absolute risk assessment.

40 The high absolute risk associated with obesity at any level of ge

41 We quantified and compared the relative and absolute risk associations of NT-proBNP with incident HF

42 slational goals, it is important to estimate absolute risk at the early stages of etiologic research.

43 When considered in terms of absolute risk averaged over a 1-year treatment period, t

44 the models of variational, maxmin, constant absolute risk aversion, and constant relative risk avers

45 The authors estimated absolute risks based on the relative risks obtained from

46 ected diabetes; estimated differences in 5-y absolute risk between daily and non-consumers were 1.9%,

47 tion to relative risk estimates, we examined absolute risks by calculating prevalence and Kaplan-Meie

48 isk of CRC with polyp type and estimated the absolute risks by multiplying the risk in patients with

49 Examination of absolute risks by strata showed the importance of obesit

50 We multiplied the absolute risks by the age cohort effects to provide abso

51 oximately 20 and 10, respectively, of female absolute risk compared with male, both statistically sig

52 64% (RR, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.19-0.69; P = .002; absolute risk decreased from 14.4% to 5.1%).

53 cOR at 3 hours, 2.79 (95% CI, 1.96 to 3.98), absolute risk difference (ARD) for lower disability scor

54 elop and validate risk models for predicting absolute risk difference (increased risk or decreased ri

55 ment failure or disease recurrence, or died (absolute risk difference -1.4%, 95% CI -7.0 to 4.3; haza

56 eter groups (two [0.7%] vs one [0.3%] cases; absolute risk difference 0.3%, 95% CI -0.8 to 1.5; p=0.5

57 ter group (172 [57.0%] vs 141 [47.0%] women; absolute risk difference 10.0%, 95% CI 2.0-17.9; p=0.013

58 (5.7%) of 907 patients in the heparin group (absolute risk difference 3.0%; relative risk [RR] 1.52,

59 [RR], 0.86 [95% CI, 0.80 to 0.93]; I2 = 0%; absolute risk difference [ARD], -0.40% [95% CI, -0.64% t

60 dds ratio [OR], 0.51 [95% CI, 0.33 to 0.79]; absolute risk difference [ARD], -0.67 [95% CI, -1.10 to

61 e with no physical activity (24.6% vs 43.5%; Absolute risk difference [ARD], 18.9% [95% CI,14.7%-23.0

62 nitially large benefit of IAT decreases; the absolute risk difference for a good outcome is reduced b

63 The absolute risk difference for babies born before a gestat

64 ds selection had similar ability to identify absolute risk difference for CVD as the elastic net mode

65 ls, but poorer ability to correctly identify absolute risk difference for serious adverse events.

66 (95% CI, -0.36 to -0.10; P < .001), and the absolute risk difference for the acquisition of cow's mi

67 In the complete case analysis the absolute risk difference for the occurrence of at least

68 The absolute risk difference in the primary outcome and its

69 oniazid preventive therapy (95% CI 3.4-7.8); absolute risk difference of -0.06% (95% CI -3.05 to 2.94

70 up that received no further therapy, with an absolute risk difference of -3.8 percentage points (95%

71 strated for 6- versus 24-month DAPT, with an absolute risk difference of 0.11% (95% confidence interv

72 and 101 patients (61%) in the placebo group (absolute risk difference taking into account center effe

73 origin products within 14 days of birth, the absolute risk difference was -0.65% (-1.01 to -0.29; rel

74 The absolute risk difference was -109 per 100,000 patient-ye

75 At 180 days, the absolute risk difference was 0.4 percentage points (95%

76 selected for oral anticoagulant therapy, the absolute risk difference was 2.5 events per 1000 patient

77 The adjusted absolute risk difference was 8.7% (95% CI, -10.4% to 27.

78 s of death of 18.6% and 18.8%, respectively (absolute risk difference with EGDT vs. usual care, -0.3

79 , 2.56% to 2.67%) in the no-screening group (absolute risk difference, -0.42% [CI, -0.24% to -0.63%])

80 , 2.56% to 2.67%) in the no-screening group (absolute risk difference, -0.42% [CI, -0.24% to -0.63%])

81 tients (4.6%) in the biolimus-eluting group (absolute risk difference, -0.78% [upper limit of 1-sided

82 sk ratio, 0.92 [95% CI, 0.68-1.25]; adjusted absolute risk difference, -1.0% [95% CI, -10.2% to 8.1%]

83 .5% of those in the liberal-threshold group (absolute risk difference, -1.11 percentage points; 95% c

84 lin group vs 36 in the saline group (14.9%) (absolute risk difference, -1.7 [95% CI, -8.0 to 4.6], P

85 3 patients (35.1%) in the bicarbonate group (absolute risk difference, -1.8%; 95% CI [-12.3% to 8.9%]

86 isk compared with 7.9% in the placebo group (absolute risk difference, -1.9% [95% CI, -4.4% to 0.6%])

87 e risk, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.56 to 0.94; P = .02; absolute risk difference, -14%, 95% CI, -25% to -2%).

88 of 84 patients] vs 39% [28 of 72 patients]); absolute risk difference, -27 (95% CI, -40 to -14), P <

89 sk ratio, 0.92 [95% CI, 0.68-1.26]; adjusted absolute risk difference, -3.1% [95% CI, -12.3% to 6.1%]

90 the pioglitazone group vs 19.6% for placebo (absolute risk difference, -4.9% [95% CI, -8.6% to 1.2%])

91 2; per protocol P=0.09) and superior to BMS (absolute risk difference, -5.16; -8.32 to -2.01; P=0.001

92 2.9%] and 33 patients [12.8%], respectively; absolute risk difference, 0.1 percentage points; 95% con

93 08; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.64-1.80; absolute risk difference, 0.2%; 95% CI, -1.0 to 1.3; P<0

94 no patients assigned to the commercial mesh (absolute risk difference, 0.7 percentage points; 95% con

95 594 (24.1%) in the long-term storage group (absolute risk difference, 0.7 percentage points; 95% con

96 defined margin, 3.80%) compared with DP-DES (absolute risk difference, 0.78%; -1.93% to 3.50%; P for

97 in group and 7.4% in the itraconazole group (absolute risk difference, 0.9 percentage points; 95% con

98 nts (29.7%) assigned to the commercial mesh (absolute risk difference, 1.0 percentage point; 95% CI,

99 0% given diazepam and 17.6% given lorazepam; absolute risk difference, 1.6%; 95% CI, -9.9% to 6.8%).

100 35.3%) in the standard-blood group had died (absolute risk difference, 1.7 percentage points; 95% con

101 y to be sedated (66.9% vs 50%, respectively; absolute risk difference, 16.9%; 95% CI, 6.1% to 27.7%).

102 34.7% in the simvastatin-monotherapy group (absolute risk difference, 2.0 percentage points; hazard

103 ) than the control group (21 of 63 [33.3%]) (absolute risk difference, 22.1 percentage points [95% CI

104 ials; RR, 1.47; 95% CI, 1.30-1.66; I2 = 42%; absolute risk difference, 24%; 95% CI, 12%-37% after 1 y

105 ,074 hospitalizations) on nonmarathon dates (absolute risk difference, 3.3 percentage points; 95% con

106 P died compared with 9,399 control subjects (absolute risk difference, 30 per 1,000 patient years [py

107 n group and 21.0% in the itraconazole group (absolute risk difference, 9.7 percentage points; 95% CI,

108 the estimation of risk models for predicting absolute risk difference, as compared to a traditional b

109 om causes other than overdose, with a modest absolute risk difference.

110 ) = 0%) and stent thrombosis (2.4% vs. 0.7%; absolute risk difference: +1.7%; risk ratio: 3.15; 95% c

111 isk of target lesion failure (9.6% vs. 7.2%; absolute risk difference: +2.4%; risk ratio: 1.32; 95% c

112 urgical patients were compared using percent absolute risk differences (RDs, with 95% CIs).

113 Although absolute risk differences are small and may be partially

114 Absolute risk differences at 10 years were calculated to

115 The absolute risk differences based on the observed data (fu

116 Absolute risk differences in daily mortality rate were 1

117 The corresponding absolute risk differences were -2.0% (95% CI, -3.3% to -

118 Absolute risk differences were 0.2% (95% CI, 0%-0.5%) fo

119 Absolute risk differences were 0.34 (95% CI, 0.22-0.46)

120 ally important and statistically significant absolute risk differences were identified only for antib

121 There are few published examples of absolute risk estimated from epidemiologic data subject

122 le risk score that provides well-calibrated, absolute risk estimates across different risk strata in

123 calculated age- and sex-specific 10-year CRC absolute risk estimates based on the number of risk alle

124 This study provides tangible absolute risk estimates for relatives of HL patients, wh

125 eshold model, and excess relative and excess absolute risk estimates have been derived mainly from at

126 Their absolute risk estimates were higher than those from prev

127 ence and competing mortality rates to obtain absolute risk estimates.

128 To understand the mechanisms of and absolute risk factors for this uncommon but serious comp

129 Results: The average absolute risk for a 30-year-old white woman in the Unite

130 ased cohort, we identified predictors of the absolute risk for alcoholic liver cirrhosis.

131 older at increased risk, defined as a 5-year absolute risk for breast cancer of 1.66% or greater, dis

132 rd ratio, 0.64 [95% CI, 0.41-0.98], P = .04; absolute risk for first RTI: 0.05 for azithromycin, 0.08

133 0.35 [95% CI, 0.24-0.52]) and an increase in absolute risk for hepatoxicity from 0.1% to 0.5% (RR, 4.

134 In 6272 patients followed for fracture, the absolute risk for hip fracture at 10 years was 20.4 even

135 acement is associated with an approximate 2% absolute risk for postoperative MI but no difference in

136 stimate the incidence rate ratios (IRRs) and absolute risk for psychiatric disorders in clinically id

137 model is used to project the distribution of absolute risk for the population of white women in the U

138 Relative and absolute risks for death in 30 days or 1 year in relatio

139 or all-cause mortality and heart failure and absolute risks for serious adverse events in SPRINT were

140 Use of NSAIDs was associated with increased absolute risks for serious bleeding and thromboembolism

141 Expressed in terms of absolute risk, for those with the short allele, the prob

142 Visual aids and absolute risk formats can improve patients' understandin

143 all risk factors provided a range of average absolute risk from 4.4% to 23.5% for women in the bottom

144 rvivors - differences in excess relative and absolute risk from female breast cancer.

145 Estimated absolute risks from modern radiotherapy were as follows:

146 ations of these factors had estimated 5-year absolute risks greater than 5%, and for some, the risks

147 per standard deviation (SD = 1.6) increase, absolute risk increase 6.1 per 1000 person-years, and fo

148 of 1.68 (95% CI, 1.42-1.98) per SD increase, absolute risk increase 7.9 per 1000 person-years.

149 777 of 1961 patients [39.6%], respectively; absolute risk increase = 3.7% [95% CI, 1.5%-6.0%]; adjus

150 NH) of 27 to induce 1 serious adverse event (absolute risk increase [ARI] = 0.038, 95% CI: 0.014, 0.0

151 9 primary outcome events for control) had an absolute risk increase of the primary outcome of 7.41% (

152 d CHD (odds ratio, 1.46 [95% CI, 1.32-1.62]; absolute risk increase per 1000 participant-years, 1.8 [

153 betes (odds ratio, 1.77 [95% CI, 1.57-2.00]; absolute risk increase per 1000 participant-years, 6.0 [

154 of 7.6 years; however, the magnitude of the absolute risk increase was small.

155 fracture surgery vs 0.31% for elective THR; absolute risk increase, 1.51% [95% CI, 1.46%-1.55%]; rel

156 .46% vs. 3.34%; RR, 1.70 [CI, 1.22 to 2.38]; absolute risk increase, 2.12% [CI, 0.80% to 3.43%]).

157 fracture surgery vs 2.34% for elective THR; absolute risk increase, 3.54% [95% CI, 3.50%-3.59%]; RR,

158 y 41% (RR, 1.41; 95% CI, 0.99-2.00; P = .05; absolute risk increased from 7.7% to 11.1%; P < .001 for

159 Absolute risk increases (adjusted rate differences per 1

160 Predicting high absolute risk is challenging, particularly for rare endp

161 Translating relative risk estimates into absolute risks is important in evaluating the potential

162 ression model and the excess relative or the absolute risk model.

163 b survivors were analyzed using relative and absolute risk models via Poisson regression.

164 For young adult men, the highest absolute risk observed was for violent offending among i

165 ed 6.8% upward, with an event rate of 13.3%, absolute risk of 10%, relative risk of 4.0 (95% confiden

166 cerebral haemorrhage (n=45 vs n=18), with an absolute risk of 9.15 (95% CI 6.67-12.24) per 1000 patie

167 ns and LTBI (n = 27830) found a reduction in absolute risk of active TB at 5 years from 1.4% to 0.5%

168 ith patients without insurance, the adjusted absolute risk of admission vs transfer was 14.3% (95% CI

169 We found a significant association between absolute risk of AKI and receipt of combination regimens

170 The rates and absolute risk of AMD were calculated.

171 factors and provide an estimate of patients' absolute risk of an event.

172 participants to determine estimated 10-year absolute risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease

173 The absolute risk of bowel surgery was higher in the elderly

174 of biologics and immunomodulators but higher absolute risk of bowel surgery, compared with diagnosis

175 Conclusions and Relevance: This model for absolute risk of breast cancer including SNPs can provid

176 Purpose Radiotherapy reduces the absolute risk of breast cancer mortality by a few percen

177 lth Interview Survey, a model for predicting absolute risk of breast cancer was developed combining i

178 However, the absolute risk of congenital heart defects was low.

179 than with planned in-hospital birth, but the absolute risk of death was low in both settings.

180 of 2-3% points over 3 months there was a 20% absolute risk of developing treatment-induced neuropathy

181 ase in HbA1c of >4% points over 3 months the absolute risk of developing treatment-induced neuropathy

182 ing the study period from 5 to 20 years, the absolute risk of distant recurrence among patients with

183 However, in patients with SVR, the absolute risk of HCC remained high in patients with esta

184 Although the absolute risk of health-protection problems, including i

185 BACKGROUND & AIMS: Little is known about the absolute risk of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and live

186 Although the absolute risk of HF is low in young age, our findings in

187 herapy (ART) as a prevention strategy is the absolute risk of HIV transmission through condomless sex

188 Data are conflicting with regard to the absolute risk of infection with biologic agents, as a re

189 ty (with a more severe stroke increasing the absolute risk of intracerebral haemorrhage).

190 Previously developed models for predicting absolute risk of invasive epithelial ovarian cancer have

191 The absolute risk of major malformations was 1.4% for expose

192 Estimates of the absolute risk of MCI or dementia, particularly over shor

193 s survivors with no psychiatric history, the absolute risk of new psychiatric diagnoses was low but h

194 of statin therapy depend on an individual's absolute risk of occlusive vascular events and the absol

195 the third trimester of pregnancy reduced the absolute risk of persistent wheeze or asthma and infecti

196 Obtaining data on the absolute risk of subsequent distant recurrence if therap

197 standardized incidence ratios (SIRs), excess absolute risk of subsequent malignant neoplasms (SMNs),

198 During 25 years of follow-up, the absolute risk of suicide was 4 in 1000 persons for boys

199 to estimate the effect of covariates on the absolute risk of the outcome over time.

200 Although the absolute risk of this complication is low, there has bee

201 The absolute risk of thromboembolic complications was higher

202 At high CHA2DS2-VASc scores (>/=4), the absolute risk of thromboembolism was high regardless of

203 The largest 1-week absolute risk of violent crime was observed following ex

204 e risks by the age cohort effects to provide absolute risks of cervical cancer for unscreened women i

205 We estimated age-specific absolute risks of cervical cancer in the absence of scre

206 We calculated relative and absolute risks of CRC for PLP and the ratios 3-hydroxyky

207 Absolute risks of infection were calculated using the pr

208 er intracerebral haemorrhage and examine the absolute risks of intracerebral haemorrhage in the conte

209 are radiation-associated excess relative and absolute risks of male and female breast cancers.

210 history of breast cancer), both relative and absolute risks of MCBC were significantly decreased amon

211 Conclusion For long-term smokers, the absolute risks of modern radiotherapy may outweigh the b

212 m age 26 y, we found that TBI contributed to absolute risks of over 10% for specialist diagnoses of p

213 09) to estimate age- and sex-specific 5-year absolute risks of pancreatic cancer diagnosis.

214 Absolute risks of readmission and emergency surgery are

215 andardized incidence ratios (SIR) and excess absolute risks of SPNs on patients with UM compared to a

216 imed to estimate the individual probability (absolute risk) of gestational VTE associated with thromb

217 es and Measures: Degree of stratification of absolute risk owing to nonmodifiable (SNPs, family histo

218 elative risk [RR], 0.87; 95% CI, 0.78-0.96); absolute risk reduction (ARR) in events per 1000 patient

219 The primary outcome was absolute risk reduction (ARR) in morbidity (defined by C

220 95; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.81-2.10; absolute risk reduction (ARR), 6.37%].

221 n terms of the relative hazard reduction and absolute risk reduction (ARR).

222 tients (1-2 risk indicators; 61%) had a 2.1% absolute risk reduction (P<0.001 each), translating to a

223 reased from 19.9% to 11.5% (P < 0.001), with absolute risk reduction 8.4 (95% confidence interval, 6.

224 0.001; odds ratio = 0.31; 95% CI, 0.16-0.61; absolute risk reduction = 28%; 95% CI, 12-42).

225 ied for repeated self-harm (0.84, 0.77-0.91; absolute risk reduction [ARR] 2.6%, 1.5-3.7; numbers nee

226 4 to prevent 1 CVD event/death over 5 years (absolute risk reduction [ARR] = 0.042, 95% CI: 0.018, 0.

227 dds ratio [OR], 1.62 [95% CI, 1.31 to 2.00]; absolute risk reduction [ARR] in events per 100 infants,

228 t statistically significant (12.9% vs 20.0%; absolute risk reduction [ARR] with infliximab, 7.1%; 95%

229 py group (20.2%) died during their ICU stay (absolute risk reduction [ARR], 0.086 [95% CI, 0.017-0.15

230 reatest comorbidity burden (2 and >/=3), the absolute risk reduction associated with CRT-D over ICD a

231 Absolute risk reduction for a population with 2.5% incid

232 Absolute risk reduction for a population with 5.4% incid

233 The absolute risk reduction for acquiring a hospital-acquire

234 The absolute risk reduction for MV with HFNC was 29.8%, and

235 e groups represented an intervention effect (absolute risk reduction in antibiotic prescribing) of -2

236 sk indicators; 20% of population) had a 3.2% absolute risk reduction in cardiovascular disease/MI/isc

237 6.3% (95% confidence interval: 2.9% to 9.7%) absolute risk reduction in CV death/MI/iCVA at 7 years w

238 ion therapy with defibrillator, with greater absolute risk reduction in death and HF among those with

239 The absolute risk reduction in mortality associated with dyn

240 Sample sizes needed to detect a 5-10% absolute risk reduction in outcomes within interventiona

241 ever, a transfusion was associated with 3.5% absolute risk reduction in postoperative myocardial infa

242 reatment with edoxaban resulted in a greater absolute risk reduction in severe bleeding events and al

243 interval [CI], 0.85 to 1.20; P=0.90), for an absolute risk reduction in the EGDT group of -0.3 percen

244 Absolute risk reduction in the RT arm was 12.0% at 20 ye

245 the use of ACDs was associated with a 0.40% absolute risk reduction in vascular access site complica

246 Based on these results, an absolute risk reduction of 0.15 (15%), a relative risk r

247 nce interval, 0.92-0.97; P < 0.001), with an absolute risk reduction of 1.4 per 100 person-years.

248 oup vs 80.4% in the home oxygen alone group, absolute risk reduction of 17.0% (95% CI, 0.1%-34.0%).

249 Meta-analyses on shunt dependency showed an absolute risk reduction of 24% for the intervention (LD,

250 tervention vs 205 [19%] of 1055 for control, absolute risk reduction of 3.46%, 95% CI 0.21-6.73%, p=0

251 compliance, the high compliance group had an absolute risk reduction of 3.6% (P < 0.01), 2.9% (P < 0.

252 less of PAD, patients with PAD had a greater absolute risk reduction of 4.1% (number needed to treat:

253 igher risk of recurrence and demonstrated an absolute risk reduction of 8.6% for stroke of any etiolo

254 randomized trial that demonstrated an 11.7% absolute risk reduction of clinically significant POPF w

255 The absolute risk reduction of death from prostate cancer at

256 The exact 95% confidence interval for absolute risk reduction of fire ignition was 76% to 100%

257 zed benefit approach (ie, based on predicted absolute risk reduction over 10 years [ARR10] >/=2.3% fr

258 Absolute risk reduction progressively increases higher i

259 th diabetes were at higher risk of MACE, the absolute risk reduction tended to be greater in patients

260 en receptor-positive first breast cancer, an absolute risk reduction that is consistent with findings

261 ing pharmacological therapy (n = 5,960), the absolute risk reduction was 1.9% with a 3-year number ne

262 9; P = 0.047) compared with placebo, and the absolute risk reduction was 2.1 per 100 person-years.

263 Absolute risk reduction was 32.3%, with a number needed

264 The absolute risk reduction was 9.8% (95% CI, 8.2% to 18.9%)

265 Across all 3 studies, the absolute risk reduction with statin therapy was 3.6% (95

266 reduction in nonfatal MI benefit persisted (absolute risk reduction, 0.15 to 1.43 events per 1000 pe

267 isk reduction, 6.7% [95% CI, 1.2% to 13.6%]; absolute risk reduction, 0.46% [CI, 0% to 0.9%]).

268 utcome (hazard ratio [HR], 0.73 [0.65-0.83]; absolute risk reduction, 0.63% [0.36%-0.92%]; P < .01).

269 %) and readmissions for phototherapy by 53% (absolute risk reduction, 1.8%; 95% CI, 1.4%-2.3%).

270 replacement therapy (7 [5.8%] vs 19 [15.8%]; absolute risk reduction, 10%; 95% CI, 2.25%-17.75%; P =

271 (54 infants [50.5%] vs 37 [35.6%]; P = .02; absolute risk reduction, 14.9; 95% CI, 1.4 to 28.2).

272 ed with control (63 of 120 patients [52.5%]; absolute risk reduction, 15%; 95% CI, 2.56%-27.44%; P =

273 from any cause (RR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.85-0.97; absolute risk reduction, 2.6%; P=0.003).Cancer incidence

274 g birth hospitalizations was reduced by 59% (absolute risk reduction, 5.5%; 95% CI, 4.7%-6.1%) and re

275 elative risk [RR], 0.84 [95% CI, 0.71-1.01]; absolute risk reduction, 6.8% [95% CI, -0.3% to 13.9%];

276 ients, ticagrelor reduced MACE, with a large absolute risk reduction, and MALE.

277 .2% (95% confidence interval: -0.3% to 4.6%) absolute risk reduction.

278 validating a model to predict individualized absolute risk reductions (ARR) of cardiovascular events.

279 ir higher risk, patients with PAD had larger absolute risk reductions for the primary end point (3.5%

280 We then investigated the relative and absolute risk reductions in coronary heart disease event

281 Similarly, we noted greater absolute risk reductions in those individuals in higher

282 The absolute risk reductions of COPD-related rehospitalizati

283 Absolute risk reductions were 25% (95% CI 6-41) for low-

284 b significantly reduced that risk with large absolute risk reductions.

285 alyses indicate similar relative, but larger absolute, risk reductions in men and older patients.

286 e assessed departures from additivity on the absolute risk scale between 9 established breast cancer

287 The ACC/AHA-recommended absolute risk score was well calibrated around the 7.5%

288 the present commentary, we address issues of absolute risk stratification (particularly for rare dise

289 isons of joint effects presented in units of absolute risk, such as Rothman's I, can provide more mea

290 ing to alcohol diagnosis in men, the 15-year absolute risk was 2.6% (95% CI, 2.3, 2.9) for intoxicati

291 The reduction in absolute risk was 8.6% (95% CI, -5.0% to 21.9%; P = .20)

292 For young adult women, absolute risk was highest for repeat self-harm among tho

293 ed with the general population; however, the absolute risk was low.

294 risk of malignancy; however, the increase in absolute risk was modest.

295 However, the absolute risk was small, and the risk increase appears m

296 Relative risk and absolute risk were calculated for early onset disease as

297 Absolute risks were calculated in a competing risk model

298 and cumulative incidence percentage values (absolute risks) were estimated.

299 2013 ACC/AHA guideline recommends assessing absolute risk with the Pooled Cohort equations, which we

300 1, corresponding to a 0.2% difference in 5-y absolute risk), with a clear dose-response relationship.