ArticleBMC medical research methodology2006
Calculating confidence intervals for impact numbers.
Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
30 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Epidemiologic studies of modifiable factors associated with cognition and dementia: systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC public health · 2014Pooled it
- Intimate partner violence against adult women and its association with major depressive disorder, depressive symptoms and postpartum depression: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Social science & medicine (1982) · 2012Pooled it
- Prevention of propofol-induced injection pain by sufentanil: a placebo-controlled comparison with remifentanil.Clinical drug investigation · 2008Trial
- Low Penetrance Sarcomere Variants Contribute to Additive Risk in Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy.Circulation · 2025Article
- Predicted Cervical Cancer Prevention: Impact of National HPV Vaccination Program on Young Women in South Korea.Cancer research and treatment · 2024Article
- Prioritizing patients for hip fracture surgery: the role of frailty and cardiac risk.Frontiers in surgery · 2024Article
- A nationwide analysis on the interaction between frailty and beta-blocker therapy in hip fracture patients.European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society · 2023Article
- Incidence and Mortality Trends of Acute Gastroenteritis and Pneumococcal Disease in Children Following Universal Rotavirus and Pneumococcal Conjugate Vaccination in Ecuador.Infectious diseases and therapy · 2021Article
- Acute Gastroenteritis Morbidity and Mortality Trends Following Universal Rotavirus Vaccination in Children in Peru: Ecological Database Study with Time-Trend Analysis.Infectious diseases and therapy · 2021Article
- Effect of bariatric surgery on employment status-a 7 years controlled nationwide registry study.BMJ open · 2021Article
- Association of short-term exposure to ambient PMBMJ open · 2020Article
- Article
- Quantitative approaches to variant classification increase the yield and precision of genetic testing in Mendelian diseases: the case of hypertrophic cardiomyopathy.Genome medicine · 2019Article
- Survival, effect measures, and impact numbers after dementia diagnosis: a matched cohort study.Clinical epidemiology · 2019Article
- Trends and predictors of extreme preterm birth: Western Australian population-based cohort study.PloS one · 2019Article
- Impact of preventable risk factors on stroke in the EPICOR study: does gender matter?International journal of public health · 2017Article
- The impact of racial discrimination on the health of Australian Indigenous children aged 5-10 years: analysis of national longitudinal data.International journal for equity in health · 2017Article
- Article
- Treatment policy change to dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine contributes to the reduction of adverse maternal and pregnancy outcomes.Malaria journal · 2015Article
- Relative risk reduction is useful metric to standardize effect size for public heath interventions for translational research.Journal of clinical epidemiology · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundStandard effect measures such as risk difference and attributable risk are frequently used in epidemiological studies and public health research to describe the effect of exposures. Recently, so-called impact numbers have been proposed, which express the population impact of exposures in form of specific person or case numbers. To describe estimation uncertainty, it is necessary to calculate confidence intervals for these new effect measures. In this paper, we present methods to calculate confidence intervals for the new impact numbers in the situation of cohort studies.
methodsBeside the exposure impact number (EIN), which is equivalent to the well-known number needed to treat (NNT), two other impact numbers are considered: the case impact number (CIN) and the exposed cases impact number (ECIN), which describe the number of cases (CIN) and the number of exposed cases (ECIN) with an outcome among whom one case is attributable to the exposure. The CIN and ECIN represent reciprocals of the population attributable risk (PAR) and the attributable fraction among the exposed (AFe), respectively. Thus, confidence intervals for these impact numbers can be calculated by inverting and exchanging the confidence limits of the PAR and AFe. EXAMPLES: We considered a British and a Japanese cohort study that investigated the association between smoking and death from coronary heart disease (CHD) and between smoking and stroke, respectively. We used the reported death and disease rates and calculated impact numbers with corresponding 95% confidence intervals. In the British study, the CIN was 6.46, i.e. on average, of any 6 to 7 persons who died of CHD, one case was attributable to smoking with corresponding 95% confidence interval of [3.84, 20.36]. For the exposed cases, the results of ECIN = 2.64 with 95% confidence interval [1.76, 5.29] were obtained. In the Japanese study, the CIN was 6.67, i.e. on average, of the 6 to 7 persons who had a stroke, one case was attributable to smoking with corresponding 95% confidence interval of [3.80, 27.27]. For the exposed cases, the results of ECIN = 4.89 with 95% confidence interval of [2.86, 16.67] were obtained.
conclusionThe consideration of impact numbers in epidemiological analyses provides additional information and helps the interpretation of study results, e.g. in public health research. In practical applications, it is necessary to describe estimation uncertainty. We have shown that the calculation of confidence intervals for the new impact numbers is possible by means of known methods for attributable risk measures. Therefore, estimated impact numbers should always be complemented by appropriate confidence intervals.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.