# Re: st: Use of the term 'relative risk ratio'

 From Michael Ingre To statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu Subject Re: st: Use of the term 'relative risk ratio' Date Thu, 21 Apr 2005 14:22:11 +0200

```At 11:25 21/04/2005, Ronan Conroy wrote:
```
I have a reviewer who is grumbling about the use of 'relative risk ratio' to describe the effect estimates from multinomial logistic regression. And it's the second time this has happened. The reviewer feels that they ought to be called odds ratios, to prevent confusion with relative risks (and that is a good point).
```Thanks for bringing this confusing issue up for discussion.

```
```On 2005-04-21, at 12:56, Roger Newson wrote:
```
``` The "RRR" of -mlogit- is definitely not a relative risk ratio
```
I have always assumed that the RRRs from -mlogit- were risk ratios and not odds ratios - because they say so and because the manual describe the exponentiated coefficients from -mlogit- as the ratio of two probabilities/risks (p. 507). The coefficients from the -logit- is (of course) described as the log of the odds ratio (p. 329).

However, it is easy to see that both produce the same (log) odds ratios, at least when the outcome is binary.

What is going on here? Why name odds ratios risk ratios?

```At 11:25 21/04/2005, Ronan Conroy wrote:
```
Has anyone else experienced the problem? Is there a more useful way of describing RRRs out there?
```How about Relative Odds Ratio (ROR)?

Michael

*
*   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/
```