Notice: On March 31, it was **announced** that Statalist is moving from an email list to a **forum**. The old list will shut down on April 23, and its replacement, **statalist.org** is already up and running.

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

From |
Marcello Pagano <pagano@hsph.harvard.edu> |

To |
statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu |

Subject |
Re: st: Odds ratio |

Date |
Fri, 09 Apr 2010 13:38:42 -0400 |

Bookmakers have no problem interpreting odds.

m.p. Lachenbruch, Peter wrote:

I almost agree - ORs are tough to interpret for non-Epidemiologists and Statisticians. However, logistic regression is designed to estimate log-odds ratios. I'd report both so both of you can feel 'happy' - of course, if the difference in probability of event is tiny, a large OR doesn't really indicate a big issue Tony Peter A. Lachenbruch Department of Public Health Oregon State University Corvallis, OR 97330 Phone: 541-737-3832 FAX: 541-737-4001 -----Original Message----- From: owner-statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu [mailto:owner-statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu] On Behalf Of E. Paul Wileyto Sent: Thursday, April 08, 2010 12:17 PM To: statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu Subject: Re: st: Odds ratioThe problem is that vastly different sets of numbers can give you thesame odds ratio... same odds ratio, with different variances. Effectsize (in Cohenesque d speak) is best obtained from fractions and andchanges in fractions. Your effect size can come from the log of theodds-ratio, but the variance will be determined by the actualproportions involved in calculating the OR.It doesn't sound like the reviewer is asking for much. Would it hurt togive the proportions?You can actually generate those effect size numbers (d) if you reportan Odds Ratio with CI95 and a sample size, but that is more convoluted.P Rosie Chen wrote:Hello, dear all,I have a question regarding a reviewer's comment on my use of odds ratio in interpreting the results of a logistic regression, and would appreciate it very much if you can provide any insight or any references for responding to the comment.The reviewer commented that all results are expressed in terms of odds ratios which makes it very difficult to assess the magnitude of the effect. Probabilities and changes in probabilities would be much easier to interpret. My impression is that, although it is true that predicted probabilities might be easier to understand, odds ratios have been used extensively in research when we interpret results from logit models.Do you have any suggestions regarding how to respond to this comment, or do you have any statistics textbooks in your mind that recommend odds ratio as a standard approach reporting results from logistic models?Thank you very much in advance! Rosie** For searches and help try: * http://www.stata.com/help.cgi?search * http://www.stata.com/support/statalist/faq * http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/

* * For searches and help try: * http://www.stata.com/help.cgi?search * http://www.stata.com/support/statalist/faq * http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/

**Follow-Ups**:**Re: st: Odds ratio***From:*Richard Williams <Richard.A.Williams.5@ND.edu>

**References**:**st: Odds ratio***From:*Rosie Chen <jiarongchen2002@yahoo.com>

**Re: st: Odds ratio***From:*"E. Paul Wileyto" <epw@mail.med.upenn.edu>

**RE: st: Odds ratio***From:*"Lachenbruch, Peter" <Peter.Lachenbruch@oregonstate.edu>

- Prev by Date:
**st: Improvement in the goodness of fit and correctly predicted counts with IPF** - Next by Date:
**st: RE: RE: Odds ratio** - Previous by thread:
**RE: st: Odds ratio** - Next by thread:
**Re: st: Odds ratio** - Index(es):