Aguiar Pedro, Nunes Baltazar
Departamento de Epidemiologia. Instituto Nacional de Saúde Dr. Ricardo Jorge. Lisboa. Portugal.
Acta Med Port. 2013 Sep-Oct;26(5):505-10. Epub 2013 Oct 31.
It is very important to review the meaning of the Odds Ratio as a measure of effect and association, as well as, the bias of the Odds Ratio when it is assumed as a risk ratio or a prevalence ratio in the case of frequent disease or frequent health outcome.
We simulated in a cohort of 200 individuals with 100 exposed and 100 non-exposed to a risk factor, a first setting of rare disease and a second setting of a more frequent disease. In both settings the risk ratios were similar. We computed the Odds Ratio and Relative Risks by the classical approach (standard method) and respectively by logistic regression and Poisson regression. After these, we introduced in the cohort a confounding variable and then we computed the Odds Ratio and Relative Risk by Mantel-Hanszel stratified analysis (standard method) and respectively by multiple logistic regression and multiple Poisson regression. We used the 95% confidence interval in parameter estimation and SPSS V20 was used in statistical analysis.
In the case of rare disease the Odds Ratio was very close to the Relative Risk. For more frequent disease the Odds Ratio overestimated the Relative Risk. In this situation and with a confounding variable, the relative Risk adjusted by Poisson regression was more valid then the Odds Ratio to represent a risk ratio. The confidence intervals of the Relative Risk adjusted by Poisson regression were always greater than Mantel-Hanszel confidence intervals.
The Odds Ratio and multiple logistic regression were valid analytic procedures in several epidemiological designs such as case-control studies and exploratory prospective studies as well as exploratory cross-sectional studies. The Odds Ratio should not be interpreted as a risk ratio or a prevalence ratio in the case of a health outcome that it is not rare. The multiple Poisson regression should be considered as an alternative procedure to logistic regression, especially if we want to estimate the effect of a specific exposure to a risk factor.
回顾比值比作为效应和关联度量的意义,以及在常见疾病或常见健康结局情况下将比值比假定为风险比或患病率比时的偏差非常重要。
我们在一个由200名个体组成的队列中进行模拟,其中100名暴露于风险因素,100名未暴露。设置了第一种罕见疾病情况和第二种更常见疾病情况。在这两种情况下,风险比相似。我们通过经典方法(标准方法)分别使用逻辑回归和泊松回归计算比值比和相对风险。之后,我们在队列中引入一个混杂变量,然后通过Mantel-Hanszel分层分析(标准方法)分别使用多重逻辑回归和多重泊松回归计算比值比和相对风险。我们在参数估计中使用95%置信区间,并在统计分析中使用SPSS V20。
在罕见疾病的情况下,比值比非常接近相对风险。对于更常见的疾病,比值比高估了相对风险。在这种情况下且存在混杂变量时,通过泊松回归调整的相对风险比比值比更有效地代表风险比。通过泊松回归调整的相对风险的置信区间总是大于Mantel-Hanszel置信区间。
比值比和多重逻辑回归在几种流行病学设计中是有效的分析方法,如病例对照研究、探索性前瞻性研究以及探索性横断面研究。在健康结局并非罕见的情况下,不应将比值比解释为风险比或患病率比。应将多重泊松回归视为逻辑回归的替代方法,特别是当我们想要估计特定暴露于风险因素的效应时。