Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 20, 2026

Measuring the Subjective Value of Risky and Ambiguous Options using Experimental Economics and Functional MRI Methods
Published on: September 19, 2012
Relative vs. absolute measures of benefit and risk: what's the difference?
1Department of Psychiatry, New York University School of Medicine, New York and Nathan S. Kline Institute for Psychiatric Research, Orangeburg, NY 10962, USA. citrome@nki.rfmh.org
Objective:
When appraising evidence clinicians are confronted with two types of comparisons: ratios, such as relative risk, and absolute differences, such as number needed to treat (NNT) or number needed to harm (NNH).
Method:
A review of the definition, calculation and interpretation of relative measures such as relative risk, odds ratio and the hazard ratio, and how they are different from absolute measures such as NNT and NNH.
Results:
Relative and absolute measures provide different perspectives. Ratios can be misleading and exaggerate clinical differences, but NNT can appear to trivialize the risk of potentially important adverse events.
Conclusion:
There is a need to understand both relative and absolute differences in order to make informed decisions.
Related Concept Videos
Relative Risk
Types of Biopharmaceutical Studies: Controlled and Non-Controlled Approaches
Non-controlled studies, commonly employed for initial exploration, lack a control group, rendering them susceptible to biases and external influences. In contrast, controlled...
Bioavailability Study Design: Absolute Versus Relative Bioavailability
Odds Ratio
Hazard Ratio
For example, in a clinical trial evaluating a...
Framing Effects
