Kim Ju Heon, Kim Min Young, Kim Soo Young, Hwang In Hong, Kang En Jin
Department of Family Medicine, Kangdong Sacred Heart Hospital, Hallym University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Korean J Fam Med. 2012 Mar;33(2):89-93. doi: 10.4082/kjfm.2012.33.2.89. Epub 2012 Mar 30.
In reporting results of case-control studies, odds ratios are useful methods of reporting findings. However, odds ratios are often misinterpreted in the literature and by general readers.
We searched all original articles which were published in the Korean Journal of Family Medicine from 1980 to May 2011 and identified those that report "odds ratios." Misinterpretation of odds ratios as relative risks has been identified. Estimated risk ratios were calculated when possible and compared with odds ratios.
One hundred and twenty-eight articles using odds ratios were identified. Among those, 122 articles were analyzed for the frequency of misinterpretation of odds ratios as relative risks. Twenty-two reports out of these 122 articles misinterpreted odds ratios as relative risks. The percentage of misinterpreting reports decreased over years. Seventy-seven reports were analyzed to compare the estimated risk ratios with odds ratios. In most of these articles, odds ratios were greater than estimated risk ratios, 60% of which had larger than 20% standardized differences.
In reports published in the Korean Journal of Family Medicine, odds ratios are frequently used. They were misinterpreted in part of the reports, although decreasing trends over years were observed.
在报告病例对照研究结果时，比值比是报告研究结果的有用方法。然而，比值比在文献中以及普通读者中常常被误解。
我们检索了1980年至2011年5月发表在《韩国家庭医学杂志》上的所有原创文章，并确定了那些报告“比值比”的文章。已发现将比值比误解为相对风险的情况。尽可能计算估计的风险比并与比值比进行比较。
共识别出128篇使用比值比的文章。其中，对122篇文章分析了将比值比误解为相对风险的频率。这122篇文章中有22篇报告将比值比误解为相对风险。多年来，误解报告的百分比有所下降。对77篇报告进行分析以比较估计的风险比与比值比。在这些文章中的大多数中，比值比大于估计的风险比，其中60%的标准化差异大于20%。
在《韩国家庭医学杂志》发表的报告中，比值比经常被使用。虽然多年来有下降趋势，但在部分报告中仍存在误解。
