Any risk reduction has to be seen in relation to the base risk. The RR reduction is not meaningful unless you know the base risk, which is what I think you refer to? The base risk is of course much, much lower in younger women. So, even if the relative risk reduction (or percentual risk reduction) is greater in younger women, the absolute risk reduction might be larger. However, when we compare effects between age groups, it is the differences in relative risk reductions we need to look at. Did that answer your question?
I was confused, I apologize. What I’m not clear on is how you relativized the data. If mortality rates aren’t normalized by age group, you cannot meaningfully compare them. From the description of figure 1 I cannot tell whether that has been done. Can you clarify?
Thank you. But my question was what justifies using relative risk reduction instead of absolute risk reduction to claim an age-related benefit?
Any risk reduction has to be seen in relation to the base risk. The RR reduction is not meaningful unless you know the base risk, which is what I think you refer to? The base risk is of course much, much lower in younger women. So, even if the relative risk reduction (or percentual risk reduction) is greater in younger women, the absolute risk reduction might be larger. However, when we compare effects between age groups, it is the differences in relative risk reductions we need to look at. Did that answer your question?
I was confused, I apologize. What I’m not clear on is how you relativized the data. If mortality rates aren’t normalized by age group, you cannot meaningfully compare them. From the description of figure 1 I cannot tell whether that has been done. Can you clarify?