Reporting only relative effect measures was potentially misleading: some good practices for improving the soundness of epidemiological results

Objective: In the medical and epidemiological literature there is a growing tendency to report an excessive number of decimal digits (often three, sometimes four), especially when measures of relative occurrence are small; this can be misleading. Study Design and Setting: We combined mathematical and statistical reasoning about the precision of relative risks with the meaning of the decimal part of the same measures from biological and public health perspectives. Results: We identified a general rule for minimizing the mathematical error due to rounding of relative risks, depending on the background absolute rate, which justifies the use of one or more decimal digits for estimates close to 1. Conclusions: We suggest that both relative and absolute risk measures (expressed as a rates) should be reported, and two decimal digits should be used for relative risk close to 1 only if the background rate is at least 1/1,000 py. The use of more than two decimal digits is justified only when the background rate is high (ie, 1/10 py). (c) 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Automated summary

In medical and epidemiological literature, there is a trend towards reporting excessive decimal digits, which may lead to misleading information especially with small relative occurrence measures. It is suggested to use one or two decimal digits for estimating relative risks close to 1, depending on the background absolute rate. Reporting both relative and absolute risk measures is recommended, with the use of more than two decimal digits justified only for high background rates.