1994
DOI: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.epirev.a036144
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Attributable Risk Estimation in Case-Control Studies

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
91
0
5

Year Published

1997
1997
2017
2017

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 148 publications
(96 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
0
91
0
5
Order By: Relevance
“…For example, 54% (95% CI 29-79%) of der(1;7)(q10;q10) in AML may be attributed to prior iatrogenic genotoxic exposure, but the corresponding fraction for 5q− is only 11% (95% CI 6.2-17%; Table 2). Because AF is usually interpreted as the fraction of disease in a population that might be avoided by reducing or eliminating exposure to an etiologic agent, 33 the observed AFs would, for example, indicate that 54% of all t-AML with der(1;7) would have been avoided if no CT had been given (Table 2). Hence, the use of AF defi- Table 2 Cytogenetic comparisons of de novo and t-AML a Cytogenetic features AML P value AF (%) Type of previous treatment P value (95% CI) de novo t-AML RT n = 64 A n = 228 T n = 51 A + T Other n = 3649 (%) n = 581 (%) (%) (%) (%) n = 128 n = 110 (%) (%) nitely provides more information as regards the impact of exposure than do P values alone.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…For example, 54% (95% CI 29-79%) of der(1;7)(q10;q10) in AML may be attributed to prior iatrogenic genotoxic exposure, but the corresponding fraction for 5q− is only 11% (95% CI 6.2-17%; Table 2). Because AF is usually interpreted as the fraction of disease in a population that might be avoided by reducing or eliminating exposure to an etiologic agent, 33 the observed AFs would, for example, indicate that 54% of all t-AML with der(1;7) would have been avoided if no CT had been given (Table 2). Hence, the use of AF defi- Table 2 Cytogenetic comparisons of de novo and t-AML a Cytogenetic features AML P value AF (%) Type of previous treatment P value (95% CI) de novo t-AML RT n = 64 A n = 228 T n = 51 A + T Other n = 3649 (%) n = 581 (%) (%) (%) (%) n = 128 n = 110 (%) (%) nitely provides more information as regards the impact of exposure than do P values alone.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…AF is often interpreted as the fraction of disease in a population that might be avoided by reducing or eliminating exposure to an etiologic agent, provided that it is causative. 33 …”
Section: Statisticsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The population attributable risk (PAR) was calculated according to Coughlin 10, where PAR was equal to (p e (OR−1)/(1 + p e (OR−1))*100% and p e was the proportion of the population exposed. As the current study was not designed as a case–control study, we were unable to measure the effects of risk factors.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Trata-se de um conceito epidemiológico que relaciona o risco relativo de um agravo com a prevalência das exposições que se supõe estarem causalmente relacionadas a ele. É usualmente interpretada como a porcentagem de casos ocorridos em uma população que seriam evitados se fosse eliminada a exposição a um fator causal da doença 12 . Daí decorre sua utilidade em Saúde Pública, parti-cularmente quando se faz necessário escolher entre estratégias alternativas de prevenção 12 .…”
Section: Estimativa De Fração Atribuível a Partir De Estudos Caso-conunclassified
“…É usualmente interpretada como a porcentagem de casos ocorridos em uma população que seriam evitados se fosse eliminada a exposição a um fator causal da doença 12 . Daí decorre sua utilidade em Saúde Pública, parti-cularmente quando se faz necessário escolher entre estratégias alternativas de prevenção 12 . O conceito foi formulado pela primeira vez por Levin em 1953 13 , com o nome de risco atribuível (attributable risk).…”
Section: Estimativa De Fração Atribuível a Partir De Estudos Caso-conunclassified