relative vs absolute risk
relative risk compares two rates as a ratio ("twice the risk"); absolute risk states the actual difference ("from 1% to 2%"). The same result can sound alarming in one form and modest in the other.
one number format built half the scary headlines you have ever read about medication. the fix is one question: from what, to what?
the same fact, two sounds
If an event happens to 1 person in 100 without a drug and 2 in 100 with it, the relative risk is 2.0 — "doubles the risk" — and the absolute increase is one person in a hundred. Both are true. One of them tells you what you actually need for a decision: how many people like you are affected. The classic study of medication news coverage found that of stories reporting benefits quantitatively, 83% gave relative figures only and 2% gave absolute figures only — the format that sells is the format that informs least.
how to use it
When you read "X raises the risk of Y by 40%", find the base rate before reacting. A 40% relative increase on a rare event may be trivial; on a common event it may be decisive. Every number on this site tries to carry its base rate with it, and where a source gives only relative figures we say so.
somewhere to put it
free. anonymous. people who’ve been where you are 🤍
get Resolv Social — it’s freewant the deeper story? read prescribed to fail
questions
is relative risk misleading?
Not inherently — it is how trials are often powered and reported. It misleads when it travels without the base rate. "Doubles a 1-in-10,000 risk" and "doubles a 1-in-10 risk" are different decisions wearing the same headline.
what is NNT?
Number needed to treat — the absolute-risk idea turned into a patient count: how many people must take the drug for one extra person to benefit. It has its own glossary entry.
more from the glossary
resolv social is not a clinical product and does not diagnose, treat, or cure any condition. if you’re in crisis, call or text 988 (u.s.), 24/7, free.