Relative Risk Reduction Can Be Relatively Misleading

Relying on RRR alone in making clinical decision can be misleading. I will outline why in this video.

[@jackhandley5648]

Excellent video, thank you. Very applicable to the current covid vaccines and the figures we are given

[@marcinw4660]

there were so many sources I looked at to understand and memorize this concept. You are a master educator. This was the best explanation I found and finally got the concept. Thank you

[@nellsypie]

I have struggled to understand this concept for ages , and in a couple of minutes you have cleared everyhing up. Thank you so so much

[@Dr.Frankensteen]

We need this study for covid right now...we already know absolute reduction risk of the jabs are less than 1%

[@josecruz-vega2070]

Simple and accurate. Thanks!!!

[@arnoldfrackenmeyer8157]

Outstanding video. It has something in short supply today. Integrity.

[@brrrr4]

Thank you very much it is very nice explanation

[@nourahar3571]

Thank you god bless

[@danielray5571]

Got it. Thanks!

[@JustBrowsing777]

Excellent. Needs to be common knowledge so patients can be part of taking informed decisions in whether to get on a drug or not. Like statins....

[@richard_perry]

Perhaps it would be worth correcting the error in the video? In Study 2, NNT may be 7 or 8 according to your point of view (see previous comments) but it is certainly not 6.

[@nealesmith1873]

ARR and NNT can only be compared when the drugs are tested within the same study (similar populations). This is a very serious error. In terms of the covid pandemic, you will get different ARR and NNT depending on how common cases are in the study group at that particular time.

[@robotron17]

All basic science has been skipped in the "pandemic". The bulk of the studies were done in the summer when risk of symptoms/death is much lower, giving them a head start on RRR!

[@MichaelToub]

Great video !

[@sidrashah4291]

awesome

[@koolmi]

Brilliant

[@zk9339]

Thanks for the video. Might be worth representing RRR = (CER - EER)/CER with the brackets to avoid errors.

[@existentialrap521]

thanks gansta great video

[@southernaesthetics5868]

Yes just like the COVID mRNA Vaccines this is great!

[@brrrr4]

agree 7

[@techotopo]

rrr formula needs parentheses

[@trucid2]

Wow, big oversight.

[@bzzt5902]

Honest question - presuming the studies can be compared, shouldn't the expectation be that if Fixitan were used in study 2 that it would reduce the hospitalization rates from 40% to 16%?

[@noora9550]

You mean there are different placebo drugs??

[@bzzt5902]

@@noora9550 no, the patients in study 2 have a much higher absolute risk (and consequently even though the 2nd drug is less effective vs. the placebo, the ARR is much higher). In general if I was studying this sort of data my baseline hypothesis would be that RRR would carry from study 1 to study 2 (60% RRR vs. the placebo so 24% ARR for Fixitan in the context of the 2nd study).

[@compier12]

How relative this is in the recent vaccine madness and Ivermectine censureship

[@compier12]

Under which rock have you lived? Show me that data on IM, because the whole science community knows it does affect mortality (80%) and length of illness (60%) tremendously. RRR of the vaccines are superhigh, but it is misleading since the Absolute RR is 1%.

[@pierce1234567891]

lol do you have scabies or worms? ivermectin has a great rrr to help with your problems!

[@Stop-and-listen]

What is NNT?

[@AmanitaWoodrose]

Number Needed to Treat - The average number of patients needed to treat before one patient experiences a benefit in a trial/study (the prevention of one negative outcome)

[@dadmaxx8127]

I think I understand NNT...how many people need to be treated to prevent 1 hospitalization. To calculate this you divide 1 by the Absolute Risk Reduction. So, for Fixitan, 1/0.03 = 33.3...so 33.3 people would need to be treated with Fixitan to prevent 1 hospitalization And, for Correctapril, 1/0.14 = 7.14...so 7.14 people would need to be treated with Correctapril to prevent 1 hospitalization In that case, the Relative Risk Reduction is basically statistical fuckery...the 60% is truly meaningless if way more people have to be treated in order to prevent 1 hospitalization. This is how, not just patients, but also doctors are misled. Most doctors are very busy tending to patients and likely do not have time to fully understand what is being pushed...I'm certain that the 60% vs 35% is a no brainer to them. Truly, Big Pharmaceutical companies are worse than cartels...at least, with illegal drugs, you know you are taking a huge risk and those pushers make no claims of altruism. Big Pharma is akin to the priests that did unspeakable acts to alter boys...pretending to be trustworthy leaders only to be the lowest and most despicable members of society. And, the politicians, the mainstream media, and the FDA, CDC and WHO are like the bishops that moved these priests around the country so that they could hide the atrocities instead of turning these "men" over to the authorities...causing more atrocities and destroying more lives and leading us towards a nihilistic amoral society. Without the lies, propaganda and cover-ups, Big Pharma would never get away with poisoning citizens and making them sicker with their "medicines". Shame on all of these charlatans and snake oil salesmen as well as their partners in crime.

[@loco28491100]

Nnt in study 2 is 1/0,14 = 7.14 , therefor nnt is 7 ?

[@richardtrevisanimspharmd6216]

Good conceptual framework for addressing why the relative risk reduction (RRR) is misleading compared to the number needed to treat (NNT). NNT works for clinical trials individually, but not when multiple clinical trials are necessary. Criticisms: According to RxPrep review tools for the NAPLEX, the number needed to treat (NNT) is rounded up to the nearest whole number when we have a decimal after it. Why? To avoid overstating the benefits of the correctapril vs placebo group over the fixitan vs placebo group. In this example, we calculated a 7.14 NNT for Study 2 and a 33.3 NNT for Study 1. Therefore, the NNT would be 8 and 34 respectively, not 7 and 33 as stated in the chart. I would recommend reviewing NNT as a possible efficacy measure for meta-analyses. You will find it not very useful as the criteria varies among studies as well as the baseline characteristics of each patient population in each trial assessed.

[@johnweir1217]

@@richardtrevisanimspharmd6216 - So ball-park figure 0.7 ARR (Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine) giving NNT circa 700 people - would you agree ? Thanks if you decide to reply.

[@wassimarnaout]

useless