ライフサイエンスコーパス: absolute risk reduction

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

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

3 performed using a random-effects model with absolute risk reduction.

4 .2% (95% confidence interval: -0.3% to 4.6%) absolute risk reduction.

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

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

7 ated with lower CRC incidence and mortality (absolute risk reduction 0.23%-0.35%) through 15-year fol

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

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

10 id-19 (relative risk 0.83 (0.70 to 0.97) and absolute risk reduction 0.9% (0.2% to 1.9%)), had receiv

11 r active TB (relative risk reduction, 28.1%, absolute risk reduction 0.9%).

12 [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

13 th reduced 28 day all-cause hospitalization (absolute risk reduction = 0.23%, 95%CI = 0.19%-0.31%; re

14 (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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

22 fit (hazard ratio, 0.87 [95% CI, 0.73-1.04]; absolute risk reduction, 0.62).

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

24 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

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

26 95% confidence interval, 0.35-0.97; P=0.039; absolute risk reduction=0.13 and number needed to treat=

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

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

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

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

31 LTBI) incidence in healthcare workers (HCWs; absolute risk reductions 1%-21%); 5 reported TB disease

32 5 percent confidence interval, 0.38 to 0.83; absolute risk reduction, 1.2 invasive breast cancers per

33 5 percent confidence interval, 0.47 to 0.89; absolute risk reduction, 1.3 per 1000).

34 %) and pulmonary embolism (1.2% versus 2.8%; absolute risk reduction, 1.6%; 95% CI, 0.9-2.3; relative

35 %) and readmissions for phototherapy by 53% (absolute risk reduction, 1.8%; 95% CI, 1.4%-2.3%).

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

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

38 taking statins vs. 37.6% not taking statins, absolute risk reduction = 12.9%, P = 0.038).

39 9; I2 = 20%; in 6 trials, 36 vs 22 per 1000; absolute risk reduction, 14 per 1000 [95% CI, 0.4-23]).

40 roup vs 51% (40 of 79) in the control group (absolute risk reduction, 14%; 95% CI, -2% to 29%; P = .0

41 (54 infants [50.5%] vs 37 [35.6%]; P = .02; absolute risk reduction, 14.9; 95% CI, 1.4 to 28.2).

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

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

44 ebo patients had a normal 2-h OGTT, with the absolute risk reduction 18.06%.

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

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

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

48 n with readmission was of similar magnitude (absolute risk reduction -2.7%, -3.2% to -2.2%) among pat

49 ars (hazard ratio, 0.10 [95% CI, 0.03-0.35]; absolute risk reduction, 2.1% [95% CI, 0.9%-3.4%]).

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

51 aban reduced ALI relative to placebo by 33% (absolute risk reduction, 2.6% at 3 years; HR, 0.67 [95%

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

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

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

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

56 eline predicted risk for both dapagliflozin (absolute risk reduction: 2.1% vs 0.2%) and evolocumab (a

57 ming had lower 28-day mortality (18% vs 43%; absolute risk reduction, 25%; 95% CI, 2-48%) and more 28

58 0.001; odds ratio = 0.31; 95% CI, 0.16-0.61; absolute risk reduction = 28%; 95% CI, 12-42).

59 Overall, benefits (absolute risk reduction 3.8%, number needed to treat 26

60 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.

61 icipants (6.3%) who received control plasma (absolute risk reduction, 3.4 percentage points; 95% conf

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

63 isk reduction: 2.1% vs 0.2%) and evolocumab (absolute risk reduction: 3.2% vs 1.0%).

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

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

66 8; I 2 = 0%, in 6 trials, 63 vs 32 per 1000; absolute risk reduction, 31 per 1000 [95% CI, 20-39]).

67 1000 vs 134 per 1000 in the >/=3-dose group (absolute risk reduction, 33 per 1000 [95% CI, 10-52]; nu

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

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

70 .9% and 22.1% for 2 and 1 preventive visits (absolute risk reduction, 5.2%; 95%CI, 1.8% to 8.4%; p =

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

72 34.8% (n = 46 of 132) in the control group (absolute risk reduction: 5.7%; P = 0.315).

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

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

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

76 tion and 274 (48.0%) in usual care patients (absolute risk reduction: 7.5% [95% CI: -13.2, -1.7], p =

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

78 erior probability of benefit was 96% (median absolute risk reduction, 9%; 90% credible interval = 0.5

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

80 0.91, 95% confidence interval 0.89 to 0.93; absolute risk reduction 95% confidence interval -2.5%, -

81 CB(G406A)-homozygous allografts had an 11.1% absolute risk reduction (95% confidence interval [CI], 3

82 pressure control was associated with a 1.73% absolute risk reduction (95% CrI 1.65-1.81) in cardiovas

83 Absolute risk reductions (95% confidence intervals) diff

84 The absolute risk reduction afforded by chemoprophylaxis ini

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

86 nfidence interval [CI], 1.3%-6.0%; P = .001) absolute risk reduction and 30.1% relative risk reductio

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

88 Absolute risk reductions and/or increases and numbers ne

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

96 as associated with reduced 28-day MMMI risk (absolute risk reduction (ARR) = 1.47%, 95% confidence in

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

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

99 onte Carlo methods were used to estimate the absolute risk reduction (ARR) and TTB for each study.

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

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

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

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

104 ssociated with bariatric surgery, men had an absolute risk reduction (ARR) of 3.7% (95% CI, 1.7%-5.7%

105 For each participant, we estimated the absolute risk reduction (ARR) of VKAs to prevent stroke

106 SBP group led to a 4.9% (95% CI, 1.7%-7.5%) absolute risk reduction (ARR) over 4 years in death and

107 The absolute risk reduction (ARR) was 2.1 per 100 patient-ye

108 95; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.81-2.10; absolute risk reduction (ARR), 6.37%].

109 djusted 10-year cumulative incidence of CRC, absolute risk reduction (ARR), and number needed to trea

110 ing was used to estimate pooled SO rates and absolute risk reduction (ARR).

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

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

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

114 Absolute risk reductions (ARR) were calculated based on

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

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

117 hazard ratio [HR] 0.85, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.10; absolute risk reduction [ARR] 1.1%, 95% CI -0.7 to 2.8;

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

119 4 to prevent 1 CVD event/death over 5 years (absolute risk reduction [ARR] = 0.042, 95% CI: 0.018, 0.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

128 ared to delayed initiation (2 or more days) (absolute risk reduction [ARR]: 1.50% (95% confidence int

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

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

131 stimated with age as the time scale, and the absolute risk reduction associated with endoscopy initia

132 0.86 (95% confidence interval 0.83 to 0.89); absolute risk reduction at 180 days 2.97% (95% confidenc

133 ve risk or hazard ratio) and absolute scale (absolute risk reduction at 180 days) were estimated.

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

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

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

137 Absolute risk reduction for a population with 2.5% incid

138 Absolute risk reduction for a population with 5.4% incid

139 The absolute risk reduction for acquiring a hospital-acquire

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

141 .5% (95% CI, 27.3%-35.9%) in the late group (absolute risk reduction for early vs late, 0.7%; 95% CI,

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

143 Absolute risk reduction for hospitalization was similar

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

145 d with an estimated 4.2% (95% CI, 1.9%-6.2%) absolute risk reduction for MACE or MALE, including majo

146 The absolute risk reduction for major adverse cardiovascular

147 The absolute risk reduction for mild TBI alone was similar 0

148 e' rather than waiting for more information (absolute risk reduction for mortality up to 2%).

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

150 Expected absolute risk reductions for antihypertensive and lipid-

151 r deaths; 95% CI, 32%-54%), with the largest absolute risk reductions for Latinx men (3755 deaths ave

152 Absolute risk reductions for preeclampsia associated wit

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

154 Specifically, for type 2 diabetes, the absolute risk reduction from lifestyle adherence was 12.

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

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

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

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

159 6.3% (95% confidence interval: 2.9% to 9.7%) absolute risk reduction in CV death/MI/iCVA at 7 years w

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

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

162 17.7% (95% confidence interval 7.2%-28.1%), absolute risk reduction in developing postoperative infe

163 re severe BARC 3 or 5 bleeding with a larger absolute risk reduction in HBR patients (-3.5% vs. -0.5%

164 s (BMI >= 30 kg/m2) tended to derive greater absolute risk reduction in HHF and AF/AFL (P for interac

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

166 The absolute risk reduction in MI with an invasive strategy

167 se groups, the posterior probabilities of an absolute risk reduction in mortality 1% were 55%, 82%, a

168 The absolute risk reduction in mortality associated with dyn

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

170 intermediate LMD status except for a greater absolute risk reduction in nonprocedural MI with invasiv

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

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

173 r hazard ratio (HR) and in absolute scale as absolute risk reduction in percentage at 180 days (ARR).

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

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

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

177 ed malignant LVH and may provide substantial absolute risk reduction in the composite of ADHF events

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

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

180 ty of life, and functional capacity, but the absolute risk reduction in the primary events was numeri

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

182 COVID-19 vaccination provided greater absolute risk reduction in these groups.

183 .68-0.93; P for interaction 0.28) but larger absolute risk reduction in those with HF (HF absolute ri

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

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

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

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

188 onstrated large and significant relative and absolute risk reductions in ischemic events, including C

189 Low-dose aspirin was associated with small absolute risk reductions in major cardiovascular disease

190 Greater absolute risk reductions in the renal composite outcome

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

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

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

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

195 0.72, 0.66, and 0.62, respectively), whereas absolute risk reductions increase (SBP: 1.1%, 2.3%, 5.4%

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

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

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

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

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

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

202 However, the absolute risk reductions observed in different clinical

203 1.3% with HD-IIV in CKD, corresponding to an absolute risk reduction of -0.29% (95% CI: -0.50% to 0.0

204 rval [CI] .77-.88, P < .0001; translating to absolute risk reduction of -3.8% or number needed to tre

205 and 0.042% (95% CI 0%-0.3%), respectively-an absolute risk reduction of 0.008%.

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

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

208 atio [HR], 0.85 [95% CI, 0.76-0.96]) with an absolute risk reduction of 0.92% at 6 months and 1.04% a

209 (2)=0.0; moderate certainty) resulting in an absolute risk reduction of 1 fewer event per 1000 patien

210 , 0.70 [95% CI, 0.54-0.90]; P=0.005) with an absolute risk reduction of 1.0% at 6 months and 2.0% at

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

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

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

214 c mesh was 5.6% (7 of 126 patients), with an absolute risk reduction of 14.9% with the use of synthet

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

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

217 ing the control period, with a time-adjusted absolute risk reduction of 2.3%.

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

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

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

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

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

223 line peanut sIgE >=0.22 kU/L (n = 78) had an absolute risk reduction of 40.4% (95% CI 27.3, 51.9) whe

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

225 ine Ara h 2 sIgE <0.10 kU/L (n = 226) had an absolute risk reduction of 6.5% (95% CI 2.6, 11.0).

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

227 1055 patients allocated to neurosurgery, an absolute risk reduction of 7.4% (95% CI 3.6-11.2, p=0.00

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

229 juvant therapy with nivolumab resulted in an absolute risk reduction of 9% (1-year DFS) and 10% (2-ye

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

231 The absolute risk reduction of death from prostate cancer at

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

233 11.3% (95% confidence interval, 7.1%-15.5%) absolute risk reduction of having >=1 emergency departme

234 12.3% (95% confidence interval, 8.2%-16.4%) absolute risk reduction of having >=1 hospitalization (3

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

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

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

238 The absolute risk reductions of COPD-related rehospitalizati

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

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

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

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

243 us 50% for placebo-treated patients, a 12.8% absolute risk reduction, P=0.02; odds ratio, 0.58 (95% C

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

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

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

247 Absolute risk reduction progressively increases higher i

248 8 [95% CI, 0.22-1.53]; n = 4738; I2 = 66.3%; absolute risk reduction range, -3.1% to -13.1%).

249 For perinatal mortality, absolute risk reductions ranged from 0.5% to 1.1% in the

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

251 tly decreased rate of AHF on admission (4.3% absolute risk reduction; risk ratio [RR]: 0.72; 95% CI:

252 ents presenting with AHF on admission (5.2 % absolute risk reduction; RR: 0.71; 95% CI: 0.50-0.99).

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

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

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

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

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

258 The absolute risk reduction varies by risk factors for breas

259 idence interval [CI], 0.80 to 0.95), and the absolute risk reduction was 0.22% (95% CI, 0.10 to 0.34)

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

261 nd 3.8% (3.7% to 3.9%) for no treatment; the absolute risk reduction was 1.1% (95% confidence interva

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

263 (95% confidence interval 0.50 to 0.71); the absolute risk reduction was 1.83% (95% confidence interv

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

265 Absolute risk reduction was 10.0% in carriers versus 0.8

266 9; P = 0.047) compared with placebo, and the absolute risk reduction was 2.1 per 100 person-years.

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

268 8; P = 0.038) compared with placebo, and the absolute risk reduction was 3.1 per 100 person-years.

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

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

271 Owing to higher baseline risk, the absolute risk reduction was greater among those with HFi

272 Absolute risk reduction was reported in 18 articles, 10

273 Greater absolute risk reduction was seen among older women.

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

275 0.57 [CI, 0.33 to 0.99]; P = 0.047), but the absolute risk reduction was small and not statistically

276 Relative risk and absolute risk reduction were computed from cumulative in

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

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

279 Corresponding absolute risk reductions were 2.7%, 3.3%, and 3.5%, resp

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

281 Corresponding absolute risk reductions were 4.9% and 6.2%, respectivel

282 Absolute risk reductions were also greater in subgroups

283 Presentations including absolute risk reductions were better than those includin

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

285 Larger absolute risk reductions were found with drotrecogin alf

286 Consequently, absolute risk reductions were greater in subgroups with

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

288 h P > .24 for interaction), although greater absolute risk reductions were observed with more markers

289 ings underscore the importance of discussing absolute risk reductions when making informed clinical d

290 Absolute risk reduction with active treatment compared w

291 Absolute risk reduction with alirocumab increased with i

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

293 mL/min/1.73 m(2) are at very high risk, the absolute risk reduction with an MRA in these patients is

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

295 evel was associated with numerically greater absolute risk reduction with early TAVR than were lower

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

297 hospitalization tended to experience greater absolute risk reductions with dapagliflozin at 2 years:

298 gh risk and experienced greater relative and absolute risk reductions with dapagliflozin.

299 Greater absolute risk reductions with finerenone were accordingl

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