[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date index][Thread index]

From |
Jay Kaufman <Jay_Kaufman@unc.edu> |

To |
statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu |

Subject |
Re: st: clogit or logistic for matched pairs |

Date |
Fri, 07 Nov 2003 10:26:25 -0500 |

Joseph Coveney wrote: > > In lieu of a Mantel-Haenszel command for risk ratio in Stata, I suppose that > you could try something like -gllamm/xtgee , i(pair) family(binomial) > link(log) eform- in a pinch, but is there a reason to prefer risk ratios > over odds ratios? Is it for ease of interpretation? I don't have Rothman > and Greenland's text, but it seems from Jay's post that they abide by the > convention of odds ratios for case-control studies, risk ratios for cohort > studies. Does that represent universal thinking among experts currently for > analysis and reporting of cohort studies with a binomial outcome? I just > was under the impression that odds ratios were a more "natural" metric for > this kind of data regardless of whether from a case-control or cohort > design. The argument has indeed been made that odds ratios are a more "natural" metric. For example: Walter SD. Choice of effect measure for epidemiological data. J Clin Epidemiol. 2000 Sep;53(9):931-9. However, these (statistical) arguments overlook an important deficiency of the odds ratio which is that it is not collapsible. This deficiency makes it useless as a CAUSAL measure (as opposed to a statistical measure) unless it approximates the risk ratio by virtue of either rare outcome or study design (e.g. density sampling). For explanation and demonstration of non-collapsibility of the OR: Greenland S, Morgenstern H. Confounding in health research. Annu Rev Public Health. 2001;22:189-212. (especially pages 203-206) For explanation of why the OR is therefore deficient as a measure of causal effect, regardless of its statistical properties (unless it approximates the RR): Greenland S. Interpretation and choice of effect measures in epidemiologic analyses. Am J Epidemiol. 1987 May;125(5):761-8. Review. This deficiency of the OR arises because collapsibility is generally our empirical criterion for confounding, and so a measure that is not collapsible even when there is no confounding is difficult to impossible causally. The ramifications of this problem surface in countless ways, for example in the problem of how to decide if one should adjust or not adjust for covariates in a randomized controlled trial (RCT): ROBINSON LD, JEWELL NP SOME SURPRISING RESULTS ABOUT COVARIATE ADJUSTMENT IN LOGISTIC-REGRESSION MODELS INT STAT REV 59 (2): 227-240 AUG 1991 - JK -- Jay S. Kaufman, Ph.D ----------------------------- email: Jay_Kaufman@unc.edu ----------------------------- Department of Epidemiology UNC School of Public Health 2104C McGavran-Greenberg Hall Pittsboro Road, CB#7435 Chapel Hill, NC 27599-7435 phone: 919-966-7435 fax: 919-966-2089 ----------------------------- * * For searches and help try: * http://www.stata.com/support/faqs/res/findit.html * http://www.stata.com/support/statalist/faq * http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/

**References**:**Re: st: clogit or logistic for matched pairs***From:*Joseph Coveney <jcoveney@bigplanet.com>

- Prev by Date:
**st: more help with mtest needed** - Next by Date:
**Re: st: more help with mtest needed** - Previous by thread:
**Re: st: clogit or logistic for matched pairs** - Next by thread:
**Re: st: clogit or logistic for matched pairs** - Index(es):

© Copyright 1996–2016 StataCorp LP | Terms of use | Privacy | Contact us | What's new | Site index |