A Guide to Hazard Ratios: What They Are and How To Communicate Them

Hazard Ratios are frequently used to report the results of research in the medical and social sciences. Professor David Spiegelhalter explains how they're calculated, and how you can turn this specialist statistic into something more meaningful and accessible.
***
David Spiegelhalter is a statistician, author and broadcaster. His book THE ART OF STATISTICS is a worldwide bestseller. He was the Winton Professor for the Public Understanding of Risk at the University of Cambridge for many years, and served a term as the President of the Royal Statistical Society.
🔗🔗 Links🔗🔗
RealRisk: a tool for science communicators 👉👉 realrisk.winto...
The Winton Centre's website: 🌐 wintoncentre.m... 🌐
Risky Talk the podcast with David Spiegelhalter: 🗣️🎙️ riskytalk.libs...

[@mys9398]

I wish you were my teacher, you explained everything so well and presented in such an engaging manner! 😀

[@BethKitchin-on6gb]

This is so helpful! Thank you! My work involves communicating studies such as this one to the public. I always have a hard time communicating hazard ratios accurately. This helps a lot!

[@marianafernandezdelcastill4673]

Very good explanation and also funny. I like how he mentioned communicating findings this way won't make the headlines "but the truth rarely does."

[@sanjeewaweerasinghe295]

Best explanation ever for the Hazard ratio

[@saagarrprasad]

This is perhaps the best explanation on Hazard Ratio out there !

[@taladiv3415]

Exemplary style of presentation! Clear voice with good intonation variation; natural body gestures and facial expressions :)

[@destro1989]

This is fantastic content, I will share with my colleagues, for us non-statisticians that need to appraise the research and understand statistics, this content is gold!

[@mukhayyirkhujaabdurakhmono356]

"perhaps telling a story in this way won't lead to such a dramatic headlines but the truth rarely does." After all this mess with COVID and such, one of the coldest lines I've heard.

[@nishu761]

Taking sensationalism out of applied statistics is an important job for the wellbeing of the society at large. Sir David Spiegelhalter does it so well. Respect. P.S - You're the reason I became a statistician. Love from India.

[@NoLabCoatRequired]

incredible. this guy and the folks behind it.

[@napulse]

Thank a lot! Wish a great future for the channel!

[@dr.dhirajsinha6878]

Absolutely marvelous and wonderful way to teach a complicated topic... wish we had more topics from you and stattistics would have been a cakewalk. Thanks very much

[@walidsarwary]

Results Individuals with ADHD had an increased risk for dementia and MCI. After adjusting for sex and birth year, a hazard ratio (HR) was 2.92 (95% confidence interval 2.40-3.57) for dementia, Can you please explain that to me In a very simple words since my English is not good please

[@axx1459]

This is fantastic, very clearly explained. Will certainly help me pass my doctor exams. Thank you so much!

[@walidsarwary]

Results Individuals with ADHD had an increased risk for dementia and MCI. After adjusting for sex and birth year, a hazard ratio (HR) was 2.92 (95% confidence interval 2.40-3.57) for dementia, Can you please explain that to me In a very simple words since my English is not good please

[@sevalsonmez96]

Great explanation, thanks so much!

[@genicadelara5243]

This is super clear. Thank you.

[@shawnmurray4658]

This was very concise and explained in a way that is easy to understand. I agree, very helpful, thanks for posting!

[@TheWintonCentre]

Great! Pleased to hear it. Thanks for letting us know.

[@esan120au]

Wonderful explanation, and beautiful criticism of the chili fuss. thanks so much

[@MImranIqbal]

excellent explanation!

[@drjrcj]

Great job!! I definitely have a better grasp on topic now!

[@KA-pk6wt]

very well explained Sir. Thank you.

[@hudsville]

Such a great explanation, reminds me of my 1st year uni Maths teacher - wonderful. thanks Prof.

[@dashag2342]

I rarely write comments but this really deserves a thanks!

[@varghejo]

Great explanation

[@danielchacreton2401]

This is a great explaination. Thank you.

[@TheWintonCentre]

Thanks Daniel! Appreciate it.

[@easybullet3]

nicely explained in a very jolly manner ;)

[@abo0ode47]

This is so helpful explanation Thank you so much

[@fatenkashour8715]

Great explanation ... Thanks

[@SidneyRanger1138]

Thank you so much. This was immensely helpful.

[@midknight198]

Love the brief and exciting explanation! Thank you fgor this

[@savedbygrace_alone]

Thank you so much. God bless you.

[@nikkihuang7635]

Fantastic video and examples, thank you!

[@HenriqueGomide]

Brilliant!

[@sgc603]

Why does the medical journals continue to publish HRs in studies instead of the absolute risks?

[@kanontongsamui7987]

Great man you are.

[@spencercoffin4277]

Amazing video - thank you!

[@dhandapani9870]

Thank you so much sir. Good bless you

[@stace244]

this is so helpful, thank you!

[@TheWintonCentre]

Glad it was helpful!

[@keppela1]

Unless I'm not understanding this correctly, one fewer death per 100 in a country the size of the US would amount to 3 million fewer deaths over 10 years. That seems pretty significant to me.

[@nikkirica4410]

Excellent. Thank you so much

[@shivalikabisht1097]

Thank you so much for this!

[@amruthavarshanikrishnamurt5947]

An amazing video :)

[@vincentmarotta9800]

I made a post discussing Hazard Ratio giving an example of smoking, but it seems to have disappeared. WHY?

[@ironymaiden2577]

Great video thank you🔥

[@khalidalfares5]

This is awesome

[@Will-ql5db]

beautiful

[@himasapa5756]

Thank you 🙏

[@ranevc]

Also I want to know how many of the chili eaters developed ulcers.

[@piggyfly00]

should be shown in all med schools

[@walidsarwary]

Results Individuals with ADHD had an increased risk for dementia and MCI. After adjusting for sex and birth year, a hazard ratio (HR) was 2.92 (95% confidence interval 2.40-3.57) for dementia, Can sombody please explain that to me In a very simple words since my English is not good please

[@invaderhorizongreen8168]

that study involved 3,591,689 people of those people who not only had dementia bout 9K also had ADHD HOWEVER that is about only 1 /500TH approximately of the study group who had both conditions. The majority did have dementia BUT DID NOT have ADHD. 0.3% of all the people had ADHD however ONLY 1.5% developed dementia out of that group that means around 98-99% did not give or take. 55,094 (1.5) 100 (1.0) first number is the the ones with dementia and without ADHD the second with. This is out of about 3.5 MILLION people. This hardly proves having the disorder will make you get dementia, given that those without it got it far more cases overall

[@dr.satyabratasahoo5644]

Good

[@skykingimagery899]

Hazard ratios are totally misleading. It all depends on your y axis. Increase your y axis by 3 times and watch the lines converge. So it is another example of relative vs absolute risk. Relative risk is used by everyone to sell you the results.

[@kowtharhassan882]

You solidify my belief in the published stats that it is all misleading and bonkers

[@kowtharhassan882]

So how is this different frm risk ratio?

[@iBakSteen]

0:41 what does he say? 0.66? North.66?

[@TheWintonCentre]

"...who quoted a Hazard Ratio of 0.66..."

[@sanaullah6911]

The one downvote is from the person who doesn't eat chillis.

[@aryanstanley3529]

Excellent video and explanation - thank you very much