ライフサイエンスコーパス: absolute risk

1 s lacked matched controls and did not report absolute risk.

2 We used competing-risk models to calculate absolute risks.

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

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

5 .06-4.36), but not of other antidepressants (absolute risk, 1.15 per 10000 person-months vs 1.12 per

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

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

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

9 R, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.32-0.85; P = .009; 5-year absolute risk, 10% [4 of 44] vs 25% [23 of 92]; median f

10 R, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.61-0.81; P < .001; 5-year absolute risk, 12% [49 of 407] vs 27% [58 of 213]; media

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

12 R, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.43-0.86; P = .005; 5-year absolute risk, 19% [16 of 82] vs 38% [62 of 164]; median

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

14 HR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.61-0.98; P = .03; 5-year absolute risk, 3% [4 of 120] vs 6% [2 of 38]; median fol

15 , 0.66; 95% CI, 0.44-0.99; P = .046); 5-year absolute risk, 7% [16 of 235] vs 12% [46 of 380]; median

16 R, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.22-0.62; P < .001; 5-year absolute risk, 7% [6 of 85] vs 32% [56 of 174]; median f

17 as 0.76 (95% CI, 0.66-0.88; P < .001; 5-year absolute risk, 8% [25 of 307] vs 14% [46 of 331], median

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

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

20 60 years of age, we found significant, 0.63% absolute risk and 11.9% relative risk reductions on the

21 While absolute risk and cost-effectiveness should be considere

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

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

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

25 ced the relative risk of MACE by 16% and the absolute risk by 2.6% (15.2% versus 17.8%; hazard ratio

26 n consumption (HR, 1.50 [95% CI, 1.35-1.66]; absolute risk by age of 3 years if the reference amount

27 hazard ratio [HR], 1.30 [95% CI, 1.22-1.38]; absolute risk by the age of 3 years if the reference amo

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

29 Hazard ratio (HR) and absolute risk difference (ARD) over the entire follow-up

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

31 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

32 odified Rankin Scale scores of 0-2 (adjusted absolute risk difference 0.6% [90% upper confidence boun

33 the Orsiro stent, met the primary end point (absolute risk difference 1.29% [upper limit of one-sided

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

35 32 in the intravenous immunoglobulin group (absolute risk difference 15.9%, one-sided lower limit of

36 ents assigned to intravenous immunoglobulin (absolute risk difference 17.8%, one-sided lower limit of

37 ) in the direct laryngoscopy group (adjusted absolute risk difference 5.5% [95% CI 0.7 to 10.3]; p=0.

38 -inferiority of the ACURATE neo was not met (absolute risk difference 7.1% [upper 95% confidence limi

39 received placebo (47.7%) (difference, -4.2%; absolute risk difference 95% [exact] CI, -11% to 2.8%];

40 he clip group and 7.1% in the control group (absolute risk difference [ARD] 3.6%; 95% confidence inte

41 robably improves recovery by a large amount (absolute risk difference [ARD] range, 7% to 10%) and may

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

43 spontaneous delivery before 37 weeks (pooled absolute risk difference [ARD], -1.44% [95% CI, -3.31% t

44 ciated with lower risk of death over 1 year (absolute risk difference [ARD], -6.7% [95% CI, -7.9% to

45 tive risk [RR], 1.60 [95% CI, 1.24 to 2.13]; absolute risk difference [ARD], 9% [95% CI, 5% to 15%])

46 ce rate, 18.9 vs 10.0 per 1000 person-years; absolute risk difference [RD] at 5 years, 4.7%; 95% CI,

47 mong lipophilic statin users (8.1% vs. 3.3%; absolute risk difference [RD], -4.8 percentage points [9

48 ricuspid cohort (0.9% vs 0.4%, respectively; absolute risk difference [RD], 0.5% [95% CI, 0%-0.9%]).

49 ude mortality risk, 5.49% vs 1.22%; adjusted absolute risk difference [RD], 1.03% [95% CI, 0.91%-1.15

50 missions and mortality were estimated as the absolute risk difference between Black and White patient

51 The median absolute risk difference between groups was -2.8%, favor

52 is: if the 90% upper confidence bound of the absolute risk difference between the two groups in the p

53 enefit of CABG versus PCI by calculating the absolute risk difference between the two strategies) by

54 The absolute risk difference for babies born before a gestat

55 (95% CI, -0.36 to -0.10; P < .001), and the absolute risk difference for the acquisition of cow's mi

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

57 RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.77 - 1.20), equating to an absolute risk difference of -0.11% (95% CI -0.68 - 0.47%

58 interval [CI], .77 to 1.20), equating to an absolute risk difference of -0.11% (95% CI, -.68% to .47

59 to 2 biomarkers positive; n = 3,842) had an absolute risk difference of -4.4% (95% confidence interv

60 94.9%) in the control group, for an adjusted absolute risk difference of -5.5 (95% confidence interva

61 >=3 biomarkers "positive"; n = 1,437) had an absolute risk difference of -7.3% (95% confidence interv

62 ups (133 of 732 [18.2%]), with an unadjusted absolute risk difference of 2.0% (95% CI, -2.0% to 6.1%;

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

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

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

66 However, the absolute risk difference was small.

67 birth rates (31.8% in both groups; adjusted absolute risk difference, -0.04% [95% CI, -4.80% to 4.71

68 ventilation (RR, 0.83 [95% CrI, 0.68-0.99]; absolute risk difference, -0.06 [95% CrI, -0.15 to -0.01

69 nasal oxygen (RR, 0.76 [95% CrI, 0.55-0.99]; absolute risk difference, -0.11 [95% CrI, -0.27 to -0.01

70 ventilation (RR, 0.76 [95% CrI, 0.62-0.90]; absolute risk difference, -0.12 [95% CrI, -0.25 to -0.05

71 risk of severe ischemic events was similar (absolute risk difference, -0.17% [95% CI, -1.33 to 0.98]

72 ventilation (RR, 0.40 [95% CrI, 0.24-0.63]; absolute risk difference, -0.19 [95% CrI, -0.37 to -0.09

73 ventilation (RR, 0.26 [95% CrI, 0.14-0.46]; absolute risk difference, -0.32 [95% CrI, -0.60 to -0.16

74 , 2.56% to 2.67%) in the no-screening group (absolute risk difference, -0.42% [CI, -0.24% to -0.63%])

75 up (risk ratio, 0.73 [95% CI, 0.57 to 0.92]; absolute risk difference, -0.51 percentage points [95% C

76 up (odds ratio, 0.87 [95% CI, 0.57 to 1.33]; absolute risk difference, -0.77% [95% CI, -3.19% to 1.66

77 .23-1.70]) and fewer severe ischemic events (absolute risk difference, -0.91% [95% CI, -1.74 to -0.08

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

79 .5% of those in the liberal-threshold group (absolute risk difference, -1.11 percentage points; 95% c

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

81 up; odds ratio, 0.84 [95% CI, 0.59 to 1.19]; absolute risk difference, -1.76% [95% CI, -5.41% to 1.90

82 3 patients (35.1%) in the bicarbonate group (absolute risk difference, -1.8%; 95% CI [-12.3% to 8.9%]

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

84 oups (43.3% vs 46.2%, respectively; adjusted absolute risk difference, -2.78% [95% CI, -7.80% to 2.25

85 42 (43.8%) in the usual care group had died (absolute risk difference, -2.85%; 95% CI, -6.75 to 1.05;

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

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

88 0.37-0.83]), or P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy (absolute risk difference, -3.7 incident cases per 1000 p

89 infarction in comparison with 12-month DAPT (absolute risk difference, -3.8 incident cases per 1000 p

90 sk, 0.68 [95% CI, 0.54-0.87]), midterm DAPT (absolute risk difference, -4.6 incident cases per 1000 p

91 t-term DAPT followed by aspirin monotherapy (absolute risk difference, -6.1 incident cases per 1000 p

92 oup and 18.0% in the CoreValve Evolut group (absolute risk difference, -7.5% [95% CI, -12.4 to -2.60]

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

94 90 (risk ratio, 1.05 [95% CI, 1.00 to 1.10]; absolute risk difference, 0.93 percentage points [95% CI

95 0 days, aspirin caused more severe bleeding (absolute risk difference, 0.97% [95% CI, 0.23-1.70]) and

96 ation (61 patients [2%] vs 29 patients [1%]; absolute risk difference, 1.07%; 95% CI, 0.46%-1.69%; ha

97 eeding was higher with aspirin than placebo (absolute risk difference, 1.25% [95% CI, 0.23-2.27]), wh

98 % of patients in the CoreValve Evolut group (absolute risk difference, 1.8%, upper 1-sided 95% confid

99 roaxial LVAD (45.0%) vs with an IABP (34.1% [absolute risk difference, 10.9 percentage points {95% CI

100 lar microaxial LVAD [31.3%] vs IABP [16.0%]; absolute risk difference, 15.4 percentage points [95% CI

101 roximately 30% (aHR, 0.71 [95% CI, .63-.81]; absolute risk difference, 1518/100 000 women).

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

103 n arterial blood pressure 70-90 mm Hg (15%) (absolute risk difference, 27%; 95% CI, 17-37%).

104 ,074 hospitalizations) on nonmarathon dates (absolute risk difference, 3.3 percentage points; 95% con

105 vement in global clinical impression (median absolute risk difference, 4% [range, 2% to 4%]), and inc

106 g/d higher than the reference amount, 34.2%; absolute risk difference, 6.1% [95% CI, 4.5%-7.7%]).

107 g/d higher than the reference amount, 27.9%; absolute risk difference, 7.2% [95% CI, 6.1%-8.3%]).

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

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

110 was only 1 (1.5%) case of delayed bleeding (absolute risk difference, reduction of 10.6%; 95% confid

111 up and in 6 (5%) patients in the clip group (absolute risk difference, reduction of 7% in the clip gr

112 discuss the advantages of the RMST over the absolute risk difference, the number needed to treat, an

113 ) = 0%) and stent thrombosis (2.4% vs. 0.7%; absolute risk difference: +1.7%; risk ratio: 3.15; 95% c

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

115 mortality (11.0% for IT vs 12.1% for no IT, absolute risk difference: -1.2%, 95% CI: -3.1% to 0.7%).

116 treat=6) and CA (HR=0.52 [95% CrI=0.30-0.89; absolute risk difference=-0.12 [95% CrI=-0.24 to -0.03];

117 ol, amiodarone (HR=0.33 [95% CrI=0.15-0.76]; absolute risk difference=-0.17 [95% CrI=-0.32 to -0.06];

118 d with control (HR=0.34 [95% CrI=0.15-0.74]; absolute risk difference=-0.23 [95% CrI=-0.23 to -0.09];

119 relative difference=0.69; P interaction for absolute risk difference=0.010).

120 ative difference=0.11; P for interaction for absolute risk difference=0.048), including in patients w

121 Within these quartiles, we assessed absolute-risk difference between the 50 x 109/L- and 25

122 Adjusted relative risks (aRRs) and absolute risk differences (ARDs) were adjusted for demog

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

124 Given the similar HRs for each trial, absolute risk differences between treatment groups were

125 The absolute risk differences for in-hospital and 30-day dea

126 The absolute risk differences for rivaroxaban with aspirin w

127 Absolute risk differences in daily mortality rate were 1

128 (36.1% versus 27.9%); these corresponded to absolute risk differences of 13.6 events per 100 patient

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

130 Incidence rate ratios (IRRs) and absolute risk differences were adjusted for sex, age, sm

131 The highest excess absolute risks (EARs) were seen with breast cancer (EAR,

132 the general population and estimated excess absolute risks (EARs; per 10,000 patient-years) to quant

133 ferred a 4-fold higher risk of stroke and an absolute risk equivalent to those with CHA(2)DS(2)-VASc

134 Among all risk factor profiles, the 30-year absolute risk estimates consistently decreased with adhe

135 ulation registry data, we calculated 30-year absolute risk estimates for development of CRC based on

136 We tailored the tool to produce absolute risk estimates in future time frames by incorpo

137 Absolute risk estimation by PCE and RECODe equations als

138 In comparison, the absolute risk following a negative LBC test was 9.3 (95%

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

140 , individuals in the top PRS decile reach an absolute risk for glaucoma 10 years earlier than the bot

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

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

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

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

145 Estimated absolute risks from modern radiotherapy were as follows:

146 ning (men aged 55 to 69 years with a 10-year absolute risk greater than a threshold receive quadrenni

147 vide an accurate estimation of the patient's absolute risk (i.e., calibration).

148 erence amount of gluten was consumed, 20.7%; absolute risk if gluten intake was 1-g/d higher than the

149 erence amount of gluten was consumed, 28.1%; absolute risk if gluten intake was 1-g/d higher than the

150 en NT-proBNP and outcomes differs with lower absolute risk in patients who have AF compared with thos

151 ontrol studies to estimate both relative and absolute risks in the competing-risks setting.

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

153 dds of persistent opioid use with older age (absolute risk increase [ARI] for every 10-year increase,

154 Absolute risk increase for 30-day mortality between trea

155 The absolute risk increase for 30-day mortality for patients

156 s to >25% in 14% of patients, and the 5-year absolute risk increase for major bleeding ranged from <5

157 9 primary outcome events for control) had an absolute risk increase of the primary outcome of 7.41% (

158 e net benefit (absolute risk reduction minus absolute risk increase) was positive for 46% of patients

159 HR, 1.43 [95% credible interval, 1.30-1.56]; absolute risk increase, 0.47% [95% CI, 0.34%-0.62%]; num

160 change, with 5.0% (95% CI 1.2-8.7%, p<0.01) absolute risk increase, was seen in 90-day mortality dur

161 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

162 In subgroup analysis, the absolute risk increased progressively at lower eGFR (wei

163 Absolute risk increases (adjusted rate differences per 1

164 Although absolute risk is low, LNB patients might have an increas

165 Although the absolute risk is low, LNB patients might have an increas

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

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

168 We calculated absolute risk, odds ratio, and population prevalence of

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

170 The absolute risk of a medical condition within 15 years aft

171 However, the absolute risk of adverse outcomes is small for either de

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

173 The rates and absolute risk of AMD were calculated.

174 Absolute risk of at least one adverse outcome occurring

175 The absolute risk of atypical femur fracture remained very l

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

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

178 the performance of the HC2 test and that the absolute risk of CIN3+ over six years following a negati

179 based Mayo Clinic Study of Aging to estimate absolute risk of cognitive impairment by biomarker group

180 Estimates of absolute risk of colorectal cancer (CRC) are needed to f

181 hat a colonoscopy can drastically reduce the absolute risk of CRC and that the genetically predetermi

182 old men and women without a colonoscopy, the absolute risk of CRC varied according to the polygenic r

183 DL-C >=100 mg/dL (2.59 mmol/L) had a greater absolute risk of death and a larger mortality benefit fr

184 The absolute risk of death during acute hospitalization rang

185 ar-old men and women with a colonoscopy, the absolute risk of developing CRC was much lower but still

186 a prediction model to calculate the 10-year absolute risk of developing dementia in an aging populat

187 nd patients to estimate more precisely their absolute risk of developing EAC, interpret this estimate

188 The absolute risk of developing high-risk HPV-positive CIN3+

189 We estimated the absolute risk of developmental vulnerability by maternal

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

191 s and clinical trials were used to calculate absolute risk of EAC over 10 years adjusting for competi

192 ous women with no preeclampsia; however, the absolute risk of ESKD among women with preeclampsia rema

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

194 Although the absolute risk of hematopoietic malignancy is low, certai

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

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

197 The 20-year absolute risk of HNC was 7.61% for a 60-year-old woman w

198 The relative and absolute risk of incident gastric cancer associated with

199 cardiovascular events, but also with a lower absolute risk of initiating KRT.

200 ransient ischaemic attack patients at higher absolute risk of intracranial haemorrhage than ischaemic

201 emorrhage than for ischaemic stroke, but the absolute risk of ischaemic stroke is higher than that of

202 The absolute risk of MACE ranged from 9.78% to 10.18%, with

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

204 We estimate an absolute risk of microcephaly of 40.8 (95% CI 34.2-49.3)

205 In a nationwide population, the absolute risk of osteoporotic fractures was low among pa

206 Although the 10-year absolute risk of ovarian cancer is small, it roughly dou

207 Absolute risk of progression was estimated using the cum

208 armaco-invasive strategy with a 0.2% greater absolute risk of provider infection, and the tradeoff be

209 The Panel noted that the benefits in absolute risk of reduction were modest and that, for low

210 e pathology database in Sweden, we found the absolute risk of small bowel adenocarcinoma is low in in

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

212 The absolute risk of suicide for people with Huntington dise

213 reproductive significance, and relative and absolute risk of the phenotype.

214 using a noninferiority margin of 3% for the absolute risk of VTE.

215 country-specific population incidences) and absolute risks of cancers.

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

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

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

219 ng RAS inhibition was associated with higher absolute risks of mortality and major adverse cardiovasc

220 The absolute risks of oropharyngeal and hypopharyngeal cance

221 The absolute risks of progression to bipolar disorder and ps

222 Absolute risks of stage 3b or higher CKD were <2%, 3% to

223 esire for results was associated with higher absolute risk, preventability, reproductive risk, and po

224 For example, the overestimation of 5-year absolute risk ranged from 1% in a woman without diabetes

225 adjusted odds ratios (OR(adj)) and adjusted absolute risk reduction (ARR(adj)).

226 A compared with 47.3% in Group O [P < 0.001; absolute risk reduction (ARR) = 35.7%, 95% confidence in

227 The absolute risk reduction (ARR) in cardiovascular events f

228 oup (hazard ratio 0.88, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.07, absolute risk reduction 0.8%, 95% CI -0.5 to 2.0).

229 ction 2.4%, number needed to treat=42; no HF absolute risk reduction 1.0%, number needed to treat=103

230 absolute risk reduction in those with HF (HF absolute risk reduction 2.4%, number needed to treat=42;

231 sk [RR], 0.46 [95% CI, 0.33-0.66]; I2 = 67%; absolute risk reduction [ARD], -2.0% [95% CI, -2.8% to -

232 4 to prevent 1 CVD event/death over 5 years (absolute risk reduction [ARR] = 0.042, 95% CI: 0.018, 0.

233 high genetic risk (hazard ratio [HR], 1.02; absolute risk reduction [ARR], -0.2%, P=0.86).

234 ted 30-year risk of 17.1% to 11.6% (model A; absolute risk reduction [ARR], 5.5%) or 6.5% (model B; A

235 to a healthy lifestyle could lead to greater absolute risk reduction among those with high T2D-GR.

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

237 The absolute risk reduction for CMM was 11% (95% CI 7.3%-15%

238 failure, and/or diabetes mellitus, a larger absolute risk reduction for experiencing a NCB event was

239 The 5-year absolute risk reduction for ischemic stroke/systemic emb

240 The absolute risk reduction for major adverse cardiovascular

241 Half of trials (47.0%) were powered for an absolute risk reduction greater than or equal to 10%, bu

242 6.3% (95% confidence interval: 2.9% to 9.7%) absolute risk reduction in CV death/MI/iCVA at 7 years w

243 There was a pattern of greater absolute risk reduction in CV death/myocardial infarctio

244 17.7% (95% confidence interval 7.2%-28.1%), absolute risk reduction in developing postoperative infe

245 The absolute risk reduction in mortality associated with dyn

246 associated with a 7.2% (95% CI, 4.1%-10.3%) absolute risk reduction in operative mortality; this ass

247 .68-0.93; P for interaction 0.28) but larger absolute risk reduction in those with HF (HF absolute ri

248 ose to low-dose dabigatran, the net benefit (absolute risk reduction minus absolute risk increase) wa

249 festyle (0.53 [0.29-0.99], p=0.048), with an absolute risk reduction of 1.12% (95% CI 0.62-1.56).

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

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

252 Patients aged 55 years or older had an absolute risk reduction of 3.3% (CI, 2.3% to 4.3%), with

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

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

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

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

257 o 2.4) or normoglycaemia (1.2%, -0.3 to 2.7; absolute risk reduction p(interaction)=0.0019).

258 8 [95% CI, 0.22-1.53]; n = 4738; I2 = 66.3%; absolute risk reduction range, -3.1% to -13.1%).

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

260 With alirocumab, the corresponding absolute risk reduction was 1.4% (95% confidence interva

261 y Asahi Recombinant LE Thrombomodulin trial: absolute risk reduction was 2.55% (p = 0.32) in patients

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

263 r categories was 3.5%, 10.0%, and 21.8%; the absolute risk reduction with alirocumab was 0.4% (95% CI

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

265 on) 0.087 for HR; P(heterogeneity) 0.037 for absolute risk reduction).

266 R], 0.89 [95% credible interval, 0.84-0.95]; absolute risk reduction, 0.38% [95% CI, 0.20%-0.55%]; nu

267 ; odds ratio [OR], 0.93 [95% CI, 0.88-0.98]; absolute risk reduction, 0.39% [95% CI, 0.09%-0.68%]; I2

268 of 4.1 years; OR, 0.93 [95% CI, 0.88-0.99]; absolute risk reduction, 0.71% [95% CI, 0.19%-1.2%]; I2

269 relative risk, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.68-1.42; 0.3% absolute risk reduction, moderate certainty), serious co

270 in addition to effect size measures such as absolute risk reduction, relative risk reduction, and nu

271 .2% (95% confidence interval: -0.3% to 4.6%) absolute risk reduction.

272 the downstream and upstream groups (percent absolute risk reduction: -0.46; 95% repeated confidence

273 ays or who were never hospitalized (trend in absolute risk reduction: p(interaction) = 0.050).

274 The 25 x 109/L threshold was associated with absolute-risk reduction in all risk groups, varying from

275 ing and/or mortality in preterm neonates (7% absolute-risk reduction).

276 Absolute risk reductions (95% confidence intervals) diff

277 Absolute risk reductions (ARRs) and numbers needed to tr

278 However, although the absolute risk reductions appeared numerically larger in

279 Expected absolute risk reductions for antihypertensive and lipid-

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

281 The relative and absolute risk reductions in HHF with the sodium-glucose

282 Greater absolute risk reductions in the renal composite outcome

283 0.72, 0.66, and 0.62, respectively), whereas absolute risk reductions increase (SBP: 1.1%, 2.3%, 5.4%

284 for heart failure were more similar, but the absolute risk reductions tended to be greater: 1.9% (8.6

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

286 Absolute risk reductions were also greater in subgroups

287 Consequently, absolute risk reductions were greater in subgroups with

288 r patients across the risk scores (25%-34%), absolute risk reductions were greater in those at higher

289 Compared with valsartan, absolute risk reductions with sacubitril/valsartan were

290 Coupled with the higher baseline risk, the absolute risk reductions, and number needed to treat ove

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

292 risk of 10.7% to 7.0 and 8.0, respectively (absolute risk reductions: 3.7% and 2.7%, respectively).

293 nerated by risk-based screening at a 10-year absolute risk threshold of 4%.

294 eening, risk-based screening at a 4% 10-year absolute risk threshold was cost-effective in 48.4% and

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

296 bursitis after vaccination was present, the absolute risk was small.

297 estimated by using logistic regression, and absolute risks were calculated.

298 Absolute risks were estimated with the use of competing-

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

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