Skip Navigation

JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute 2001 93(21):1585; doi:10.1093/jnci/93.21.1585-a
© 2001 by Oxford University Press
This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Request Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Arnold, K.
Right arrow Articles by Eckstein, D.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Arnold, K.
Right arrow Articles by Eckstein, D.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Journal of the National Cancer Institute, Vol. 93, No. 21, 1585, November 7, 2001
© 2001 Oxford University Press

MEMORANDUM FOR: Science Writers and Editors on the Journal Press List

A New Look at Some Old Data: Relative Risk and Absolute Risk Clarified

November 1, 2001 (EMBARGOED FOR RELEASE 4 P.M. ET November 6)

Katherine Arnold, Deputy News Editor, Dan Eckstein, (301) 986-1891, ext. 112

Confusing relative risk with absolute risk can lead to incorrect interpretations of the data from well-conceived and well-conducted studies.

This point is made by Thomas V. Perneger, M.D., Ph.D., at the University of Geneva Medical School and the Geneva University Hospitals, Geneva, Switzerland, in a Commentary appearing in the Nov. 7 issue of the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

. . . [Full Text of this Article]


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?