ライフサイエンスコーパス: absolute risk reduction

1 .2% (95% confidence interval: -0.3% to 4.6%) absolute risk reduction.

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

3 6% (aspirin) (relative risk 0.87, 0.43-1.73; absolute risk reduction 0.2%, -0.7 to 1.2).

4 lative risk 0.83 [95% CI 0.66-1.04], p=0.11; absolute risk reduction 0.40 per 1000 women invited to s

5 [CI, 0.59 to 0.93]) but more than twice the absolute risk reduction (0.07 [CI, 0.03 to 0.12] in 4.9

6 (relative risk, 0.78 [95% CI, 0.67 to 0.89]; absolute risk reduction, 0.03 [CI, 0.01 to 0.04] in 4.3

7 (relative risk, 0.80 [95% CI, 0.65 to 0.98]; absolute risk reduction, 0.07 percentage point).

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

9 ely; relative risk, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.73-0.93; absolute risk reduction, 0.33%; P = .004).

10 e none of the 8 sham-GVC patients responded (absolute risk reduction, 0.375; 95% CI, 0.04-0.71).

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

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

13 95% confidence interval, 0.35-0.97; P=0.039; absolute risk reduction=0.13 and number needed to treat=

14 hannel blockers or alpha blockers had a 65% (absolute risk reduction=0.31 95% CI 0.25-0.38) greater l

15 nce interval [CI] -0.5% to 5.3%) or without (absolute risk reduction 1.7%, 95% CI 0.5% to 3.0%) (p(in

16 trend toward reduced in-hospital mortality (absolute risk reduction 1.9%; 95% CI 6.7% lower to 2.9%

17 5 percent confidence interval, 0.38 to 0.83; absolute risk reduction, 1.2 invasive breast cancers per

18 5 percent confidence interval, 0.47 to 0.89; absolute risk reduction, 1.3 per 1000).

19 %) and pulmonary embolism (1.2% versus 2.8%; absolute risk reduction, 1.6%; 95% CI, 0.9-2.3; relative

20 %) and readmissions for phototherapy by 53% (absolute risk reduction, 1.8%; 95% CI, 1.4%-2.3%).

21 int (relative risk, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.67-1.01; absolute risk reduction, -1.5%; 95% CI, -3.0% to 0.1%; P

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

23 9; I2 = 20%; in 6 trials, 36 vs 22 per 1000; absolute risk reduction, 14 per 1000 [95% CI, 0.4-23]).

24 (54 infants [50.5%] vs 37 [35.6%]; P = .02; absolute risk reduction, 14.9; 95% CI, 1.4 to 28.2).

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

26 lative risk reduction, 71% [CI, 64% to 77%]; absolute risk reduction, 16 percentage points [CI, 14 to

27 er UFH, either with concomitant clopidogrel (absolute risk reduction 2.4%, 95% confidence interval [C

28 atients with less than 30% stenosis (n=1746, absolute risk reduction -2.2%, p=0.05), had no effect in

29 d ratio, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.36 to 1.09; P=0.09; absolute risk reduction, 2.6 percentage points).

30 linical benefit) were lower with enoxaparin (absolute risk reduction, 2.6% in women [P=0.02] and 1.6%

31 d 16.4% for 2 or 1 annual preventive visits (absolute risk reduction, 2.6%; 95%CI, 0.5% to 5.8%; p =

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

33 fidence interval [CI], 0.71 to 1.08; P=0.22; absolute risk reduction, 2.9 percentage points).

34 0.001; odds ratio = 0.31; 95% CI, 0.16-0.61; absolute risk reduction = 28%; 95% CI, 12-42).

35 on placebo (risk ratio 0.7 [95% CI 0.3-1.2]; absolute risk reduction -3.8% [95% CI -9.4 to 1.9]; p=0.

36 al benefit: (1) relative risk reduction, (2) absolute risk reduction, (3) absolute survival benefit,

37 eater in diabetic than nondiabetic patients (absolute risk reduction: 3.7% vs. 0.1%; p interaction =

38 8; I 2 = 0%, in 6 trials, 63 vs 32 per 1000; absolute risk reduction, 31 per 1000 [95% CI, 20-39]).

39 1000 vs 134 per 1000 in the >/=3-dose group (absolute risk reduction, 33 per 1000 [95% CI, 10-52]; nu

40 confidence interval, 0.41 to 0.83; P=0.003; absolute risk reduction, 36 per 1000 women treated for 1

41 p and 291 (33%) of 871 in the placebo group (absolute-risk reduction 5% [95% CI 1-10]).

42 .9% and 22.1% for 2 and 1 preventive visits (absolute risk reduction, 5.2%; 95%CI, 1.8% to 8.4%; p =

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

44 -up (relative risk, 0.62 [CI, 0.44 to 0.87]; absolute risk reduction, 6.1%).

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

46 ared with 81 (9.3%) in the enoxaparin group (absolute risk reduction 7.3%, 95% CI 5.2-9.4; p<0.0001).

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

48 ing deep vein thrombosis (7.3% versus 16.7%; absolute risk reduction, 9.4%; 95% confidence interval [

49 The absolute risk reduction afforded by chemoprophylaxis ini

50 t vs. 35.6 percent, P=0.007), a 12.1 percent absolute risk reduction and a 25 percent relative reduct

51 Absolute risk reductions and/or increases and numbers ne

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

53 le we consider the relevance of relative and absolute risk reductions, and draw attention to the impo

54 linical upper GI events and the event rates, absolute risk reductions, and numbers needed to treat fo

55 nt rate for EVAR was 42% and for OR was 47% [absolute risk reduction (ARR) = 5.4%; 95% confidence int

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

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

58 of the number needed to treat (NNT) and the absolute risk reduction (ARR) in RCTs.

59 95; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.81-2.10; absolute risk reduction (ARR), 6.37%].

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

61 ysis were reanalyzed to provide estimates of absolute risk reductions (ARR) and numbers needed to tre

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

63 (DRFS) if predicted treatment sensitive and absolute risk reduction ([ARR], difference in DRFS betwe

64 d matching and adjustment for survivor bias (absolute risk reduction [ARR] -5.9%, P<0.001).

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

66 4 to prevent 1 CVD event/death over 5 years (absolute risk reduction [ARR] = 0.042, 95% CI: 0.018, 0.

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

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

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

70 dds ratio [OR], 0.14 [95% CI, 0.04 to 0.47]; absolute risk reduction [ARR], 0.8%), asymptomatic deep

71 tio [OR], 1.16; 95% CI, 1.14-1.17; P < .001; absolute risk reduction [ARR], 1.5%).

72 usted mortality decreased from 5.8% to 4.2% (absolute risk reduction [ARR], 1.6%; 95% CI, 1.4%-1.9%;

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

74 Among carriers, the absolute risk reduction by pravastatin was 4.89% (95% CI

75 seline eGFR >60 ml/min/1.73 m(2) and greater absolute risk reduction compared with those with a highe

76 interval, 0.6-20.9, P=0.03) resulting in an absolute risk reduction for a new vertebral fracture of

77 Absolute risk reduction for a population with 2.5% incid

78 Absolute risk reduction for a population with 5.4% incid

79 The absolute risk reduction for acquiring a hospital-acquire

80 .5% (95% CI, 27.3%-35.9%) in the late group (absolute risk reduction for early vs late, 0.7%; 95% CI,

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

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

83 on, the groups of patients with the greatest absolute risk reduction have the most to gain.

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

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

86 6.3% (95% confidence interval: 2.9% to 9.7%) absolute risk reduction in CV death/MI/iCVA at 7 years w

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

88 w- and intermediate-risk groups and an 11.1% absolute risk reduction in highest-risk patients.

89 The absolute risk reduction in MI with an invasive strategy

90 The absolute risk reduction in mortality associated with dyn

91 Aspirin use was associated with an absolute risk reduction in myocardial infarction of 137

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

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

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

95 ral factor Xa inhibitors can achieve a small absolute risk reduction in symptomatic deep venous throm

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

97 se was estimated by calculating the ratio of absolute risk reduction in the finasteride arm to the ab

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

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

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

101 The relative and absolute risk reductions in dependency or death after al

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

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

104 ile (<32.8 mg/dL) compared with 32.9% (11.2% absolute risk reduction) in the highest HDL-C quartile (

105 Because the benefit in terms of absolute risk reduction is critically dependent on the p

106 Because the absolute risk reduction is likely low, further investiga

107 However, their absolute risk reduction is small and the cost-effectiven

108 ical ventilation >or=48 hours), although the absolute risk reduction is small, and a decrease in mort

109 However, the absolute risk reductions observed in different clinical

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

111 cedure characteristics, there was an overall absolute risk reduction of 0.9% for MACEs (odds ratio =

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

113 interval, 0.40-0.74; P<0.001) and a 10-year absolute risk reduction of 12.7% (number needed to treat

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

115 routine use of erythropoietin resulted in an absolute risk reduction of 191 per million for all trans

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

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

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

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

120 ional strokes per 10 000 person-years and an absolute risk reduction of 6 fewer hip fractures per 10

121 b and 17% for placebo (P = .02), yielding an absolute risk reduction of 7%.

122 1055 patients allocated to neurosurgery, an absolute risk reduction of 7.4% (95% CI 3.6-11.2, p=0.00

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

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

125 The absolute risk reduction of death from prostate cancer at

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

127 nd without erythropoietin, we calculated the absolute risk reduction of transfusion-related adverse e

128 or to aspirin for reducing stroke in AF, the absolute risk reduction of warfarin depends on the strok

129 seline risk, aspirin use was associated with absolute risk reductions of 2% to 5% for preeclampsia (r

130 The absolute risk reductions of COPD-related rehospitalizati

131 trol group correctly quantified the benefit (absolute risk reduction) of the statin (P < 0.001).

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

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

134 s, and 8 more invasive breast cancers, while absolute risk reductions per 10 000 person-years were 6

135 The corresponding absolute risk reductions per 1000 persons were -7.7 (95%

136 Absolute risk reduction progressively increases higher i

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

138 eive statin therapy, they received a greater absolute risk reduction than younger individuals.

139 rial, women had similar relative and greater absolute risk reductions than men when treated with enox

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

141 The absolute risk reduction varies by risk factors for breas

142 The mean relative and absolute risk reduction was 0.46 +/- 26% and 20.3 +/- 12

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

144 Absolute risk reduction was 10.0% in carriers versus 0.8

145 9; P = 0.047) compared with placebo, and the absolute risk reduction was 2.1 per 100 person-years.

146 8; P = 0.038) compared with placebo, and the absolute risk reduction was 3.1 per 100 person-years.

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

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

149 Absolute risk reduction was reported in 18 articles, 10

150 Greater absolute risk reduction was seen among older women.

151 The relative effect was smaller, but absolute risk reduction was similar in patients with hyp

152 0.57 [CI, 0.33 to 0.99]; P = 0.047), but the absolute risk reduction was small and not statistically

153 ants) reduced stroke by 22% (CI, 2% to 38%); absolute risk reductions were 1.5% per year for primary

154 reduced stroke by 62% (95% CI, 48% to 72%); absolute risk reductions were 2.7% per year for primary

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

156 Presentations including absolute risk reductions were better than those includin

157 Relative risk (RR) ratios and absolute risk reductions were combined using random-effe

158 Larger absolute risk reductions were found with drotrecogin alf

159 Absolute risk reduction with active treatment compared w

160 hlorothiazide group (11.8%), representing an absolute risk reduction with benazepril-amlodipine thera

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