HUANG Qiao 1,2,3 , ZHAO Mingjuan 1,2,3 , LUO Lisha 1,2,3 , DENG Tong 1,2,3 , ZENG Xiantao 1,2,3,4 , WANG Xinghuan 1,2,4
  • 1. Center for Evidence-Based and Translational Medicine, Zhongnan Hospital of Wuhan University, Wuhan 430071, P.R.China;
  • 2. Center for Evidence-Based and Translational Medicine, Wuhan University, Wuhan 430071, P.R.China;
  • 3. Department of Evidence-Based Medicine and Clinical Epidemiology, The Second Clinical College, Wuhan University, Wuhan 430071, P.R.China;
  • 4. Department of Urology, Zhongnan Hospital of Wuhan University, Wuhan 430071, P.R.China;
ZENG Xiantao, Email: zengxiantao1128@163.com; WANG Xinghuan, Email: wangxinghuan1965@163.com
Export PDF Favorites Scan Get Citation

Risk ratio (RR) and hazard ratio (HR) are two common effect measures in prospective studies. When describing the magnitude of clinical effects in the original study and meta-analysis, they cannot be used interchangeably. Selecting an appropriate measures and interpreting them correctly is critical in clinical research. In this study, we summarized similarities and differences between risk and hazard, compared differences between RR and HR in estimation methods and clinical interpretation. The magnitude of RR and HR estimated from the same studies were compared, and two feasible formulas converting between RR and HR were presented for meta-analysis.

Citation: HUANG Qiao, ZHAO Mingjuan, LUO Lisha, DENG Tong, ZENG Xiantao, WANG Xinghuan. Discrimination and conversion between hazard ratio and risk ratio as effect measures in prospective studies. Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine, 2020, 20(10): 1221-1225. doi: 10.7507/1672-2531.202005092 Copy

  • Previous Article

    Evidence-based pathology
  • Next Article

    Meta-analysis of single rates with zero events