Why population attributable fractions can sum to more than one
Abstract
Background Population attributable fractions (PAFs) are useful for estimating the proportion of disease cases that could be prevented if risk factors were reduced or eliminated. For diseases with multiple risk factors, PAFs of individual risk factors can sum to more than 1, a result suggesting the impossible situation in which more than 100% of cases are preventable.Methods A hypothetical example in which risk factors for a disease were eliminated in different sequences was analyzed to show why PAFs can sum to more than 1.Results PAF estimates assume each risk factor is the first to be eliminated, thereby describing mutually exclusive scenarios that are illogical to sum, except under special circumstances. PAFs can sum to more than 1 because some individuals with more than one risk factor can have disease prevented in more than one way, and the prevented cases of these individuals could be counted more than once. Upper and lower limits of sequential attributable fractions (SAFs) can be calculated to describe the maximum and minimum proportions of the original number of disease cases that would be prevented if a particular risk factor were eliminated.Conclusions Improved descriptions of the assumptions that underlie the PAF calculations, use of SAF limits, or multivariable PAFs would help avoid unrealistic estimates of the disease burden that would be prevented after resources are expended to reduce or eliminate multiple risk factors.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Population attributable fractions generally tend to overestimate the true attributable fraction.
“PAF generally tends to overestimate the true attributable fraction (94, 95).”
From Over two hundred million injuries to anterior teeth attributable to large overjet: a meta-analysis (2015) · cites this paper as [94]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 21 · Cited by 126
- Authors
- Rowe, A. K., Powell, K. E., & Flanders, W. D.
- Affiliations
- Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (US)
- Georgia Department of Public Health (US)
- Corresponding author
- Rowe, Alexander K.
- Venue
- American Journal of Preventive Medicine
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2004-04
- Volume
- 26
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 243-249
- ISSN
- 0749-3797 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2077923512
- Cited by
- 126
- References
- 21
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 10 · 2012: 10
- FWCI
- 4.05
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- American Journal of Preventive Medicine (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Epidemiology
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Historical and modern epidemiology studies
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Global Cancer Incidence and Screening
- Keywords
- population attributable fraction, multiple risk factors, disease prevention, disease burden
- MeSH terms
- Chronic Disease, Epidemiologic Methods, Female, Health Status, Humans, Male, Patient Compliance, Primary Prevention, Public Health, Risk Factors, Sensitivity and Specificity, Models, Statistical, Infection Control, Risk Assessment
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review