• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

相似文献

1
Estimating Relative Risk When Observing Zero Events-Frequentist Inference and Bayesian Credibility Intervals.在观察到零事件时估计相对风险——频率论推断与贝叶斯可信区间
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021 May 21;18(11):5527. doi: 10.3390/ijerph18115527.
2
Empirical weighted Bayesian tolerance intervals.经验加权贝叶斯容忍区间
J Biopharm Stat. 2021 Mar;31(2):180-190. doi: 10.1080/10543406.2020.1814801. Epub 2020 Sep 30.
3
Bayesian prediction intervals for assessing P-value variability in prospective replication studies.贝叶斯预测区间在评估前瞻性重复研究中 P 值变异性的应用。
Transl Psychiatry. 2017 Dec 8;7(12):1271. doi: 10.1038/s41398-017-0024-3.
4
Empirical Bayes interval estimates that are conditionally equal to unadjusted confidence intervals or to default prior credibility intervals.经验贝叶斯区间估计在条件上等同于未调整的置信区间或默认的先验可信区间。
Stat Appl Genet Mol Biol. 2012 Feb 21;11(3):Article 7. doi: 10.1515/1544-6115.1765.
5
Interpreting the results of clinical trials, embracing uncertainty: A Bayesian approach.解读临床试验结果,拥抱不确定性:贝叶斯方法。
Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2021 Feb;65(2):146-150. doi: 10.1111/aas.13725. Epub 2020 Oct 24.
6
Sample size determination for Bayesian analysis of small n sequential, multiple assignment, randomized trials (snSMARTs) with three agents.小样本序贯、多次分配、随机试验(snSMARTs)中三种药物的贝叶斯分析的样本量确定。
J Biopharm Stat. 2020 Nov 1;30(6):1109-1120. doi: 10.1080/10543406.2020.1815032. Epub 2020 Sep 6.
7
Bayesian statistical inference enhances the interpretation of contemporary randomized controlled trials.贝叶斯统计推断增强了对当代随机对照试验的解读。
J Clin Epidemiol. 2009 Jan;62(1):13-21.e5. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2008.07.006. Epub 2008 Oct 23.
8
Interpreting frequentist hypothesis tests: insights from Bayesian inference.贝叶斯推理视角下的频率派假设检验解读
Can J Anaesth. 2023 Oct;70(10):1560-1575. doi: 10.1007/s12630-023-02557-5. Epub 2023 Oct 4.
9
The contrast and convergence of Bayesian and frequentist statistical approaches in pharmacoeconomic analysis.贝叶斯统计方法与频率论统计方法在药物经济学分析中的对比与融合
Pharmacoeconomics. 2007;25(8):649-64. doi: 10.2165/00019053-200725080-00003.
10
The Upper Limits of Risk Ratios and Recommendations for Reporting Risk Ratios, Odds Ratios, and Rate Ratios.风险比率的上限以及关于报告风险比率、比值比和率比的建议。
Cureus. 2023 Apr 18;15(4):e37799. doi: 10.7759/cureus.37799. eCollection 2023 Apr.

引用本文的文献

1
Sugammadex reduces urinary retention after laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair: a retrospective analysis and brief literature review.舒更葡糖钠可减少腹腔镜腹股沟疝修补术后尿潴留:一项回顾性分析及简要文献综述
Surg Endosc. 2025 Jul 1. doi: 10.1007/s00464-025-11915-x.
2
How well do different COVID-19 vaccines protect against different viral variants? A systematic review and meta-analysis.不同的新冠病毒疫苗对不同病毒变种的防护效果如何?一项系统评价与荟萃分析。
Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg. 2025 Jan 3;119(1):1-12. doi: 10.1093/trstmh/trae082.
3
Spatiotemporal patterns and surveillance artifacts in maternal mortality in the United States: a population-based study.美国孕产妇死亡率的时空模式与监测假象:一项基于人群的研究
Lancet Reg Health Am. 2024 Oct 4;39:100902. doi: 10.1016/j.lana.2024.100902. eCollection 2024 Nov.
4
Prevalence of Oral Human Papillomavirus Infection Among Urban Gay, Bisexual, and Other Men Who Have Sex With Men in Canada, 2017-2019.2017-2019 年加拿大城市男同性恋、双性恋和其他男男性行为者中口腔人乳头瘤病毒感染的流行率。
J Infect Dis. 2024 Nov 15;230(5):e1039-e1048. doi: 10.1093/infdis/jiae345.
5
Vaccination for the prevention of equine herpesvirus-1 disease in domesticated horses: A systematic review and meta-analysis.马疱疹病毒 1 病在驯养马中的预防接种:系统评价和荟萃分析。
J Vet Intern Med. 2024 May-Jun;38(3):1858-1871. doi: 10.1111/jvim.16895. Epub 2023 Nov 6.
6
Impact of Duodenal Pathology on Oral Drug Bioavailability and Disease Outcomes in Pediatric Crohn's Disease.十二指肠病变对儿童克罗恩病口服药物生物利用度及疾病转归的影响
Pharmaceuticals (Basel). 2023 Feb 28;16(3):373. doi: 10.3390/ph16030373.
7
Neurodegenerative disease risk among former international rugby union players.前国际橄榄球联盟球员的神经退行性疾病风险。
J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2022 Dec;93(12):1262-1268. doi: 10.1136/jnnp-2022-329675. Epub 2022 Oct 4.
8
Effectiveness of Inactivated COVID-19 Vaccines Against Illness Caused by the B.1.617.2 (Delta) Variant During an Outbreak in Guangdong, China : A Cohort Study.在中国广东省疫情期间,灭活 COVID-19 疫苗对 B.1.617.2(德尔塔)变异株引起的疾病的有效性:一项队列研究。
Ann Intern Med. 2022 Apr;175(4):533-540. doi: 10.7326/M21-3509. Epub 2022 Feb 1.

本文引用的文献

1
Risk of intussusception after monovalent rotavirus vaccine (Rotavac) in Indian infants: A self-controlled case series analysis.单价轮状病毒疫苗(Rotavac)接种后印度婴儿发生肠套叠的风险:一项自身对照病例系列分析。
Vaccine. 2021 Jan 3;39(1):78-84. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2020.09.019. Epub 2020 Sep 21.
2
Exact Bayesian Inference Comparing Binomial Proportions, With Application to Proof-of-Concept Clinical Trials.比较二项比例的精确贝叶斯推断及其在概念验证临床试验中的应用
Ther Innov Regul Sci. 2015 Jan;49(1):163-174. doi: 10.1177/2168479014547420.
3
Reporting of Bayesian analysis in epidemiologic research should become more transparent.流行病学研究中贝叶斯分析的报告应更加透明。
J Clin Epidemiol. 2017 Jun;86:51-58.e2. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.04.008. Epub 2017 Apr 18.
4
Exact confidence intervals for the relative risk and the odds ratio.相对风险和比值比的精确置信区间。
Biometrics. 2015 Dec;71(4):985-95. doi: 10.1111/biom.12360. Epub 2015 Jul 30.
5
Recommended confidence intervals for two independent binomial proportions.两个独立二项比例的推荐置信区间。
Stat Methods Med Res. 2015 Apr;24(2):224-54. doi: 10.1177/0962280211415469. Epub 2011 Oct 13.
6
Protective efficacy of standard Edmonston-Zagreb measles vaccination in infants aged 4.5 months: interim analysis of a randomised clinical trial.4.5月龄婴儿中标准埃登斯顿-萨格勒布麻疹疫苗接种的保护效力:一项随机临床试验的中期分析
BMJ. 2008 Jul 24;337:a661. doi: 10.1136/bmj.a661.
7
Model-based estimation of relative risks and other epidemiologic measures in studies of common outcomes and in case-control studies.在常见结局研究和病例对照研究中基于模型的相对风险及其他流行病学指标估计
Am J Epidemiol. 2004 Aug 15;160(4):301-5. doi: 10.1093/aje/kwh221.
8
On estimating the relation between blood group and disease.关于评估血型与疾病之间的关系。
Ann Hum Genet. 1955 Jun;19(4):251-3. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-1809.1955.tb01348.x.
9
Estimating the relative risk in cohort studies and clinical trials of common outcomes.在队列研究和常见结局的临床试验中估计相对风险。
Am J Epidemiol. 2003 May 15;157(10):940-3. doi: 10.1093/aje/kwg074.
10
Estimating with confidence the risk of rare adverse events, including those with observed rates of zero.以置信度估计罕见不良事件的风险,包括那些观察发生率为零的事件。
Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2002 Mar-Apr;27(2):207-10. doi: 10.1053/rapm.2002.30708.

在观察到零事件时估计相对风险——频率论推断与贝叶斯可信区间

Estimating Relative Risk When Observing Zero Events-Frequentist Inference and Bayesian Credibility Intervals.

作者信息

Möller Sören, Ahrenfeldt Linda Juel

机构信息

Department of Clinical Research, University of Southern Denmark, 5000 Odense C, Denmark.

Open Patient Data Explorative Network, Odense University Hospital, 5000 Odense C, Denmark.

出版信息

Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021 May 21;18(11):5527. doi: 10.3390/ijerph18115527.

DOI:10.3390/ijerph18115527
PMID:34064019
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8196730/
Abstract

Relative risk (RR) is a preferred measure for investigating associations in clinical and epidemiological studies with dichotomous outcomes. However, if the outcome of interest is rare, it frequently occurs that no events are observed in one of the comparison groups. In this case, many of the standard methods used to obtain confidence intervals (CIs) for the RRs are not feasible, even in studies with strong statistical evidence of an association. Different strategies for solving this challenge have been suggested in the literature. This paper, which uses both mathematical arguments and statistical simulations, aims to present, compare, and discuss the different statistical approaches to obtain CIs for RRs in the case of no events in one of the comparison groups. Moreover, we compare these frequentist methods with Bayesian approaches to determine credibility intervals (CrIs) for the RRs. Our results indicate that most of the suggested approaches can be used to obtain CIs (or CrIs) for RRs in the case of no events, although one-sided intervals obtained by methods based on deliberate, probabilistic considerations should be preferred over ad hoc methods. In addition, we demonstrate that Bayesian approaches can be used to obtain CrIs in these situations. Thus, it is possible to obtain statistical inference for the RR, even in studies with no events in one of the comparison groups, and CIs for the RRs should always be provided. However, it is important to note that the obtained intervals are sensitive to the method chosen in the case of small sample sizes.

摘要

相对风险(RR)是临床和流行病学研究中用于调查二分结局关联性的首选指标。然而,如果感兴趣的结局罕见,经常会出现其中一个比较组未观察到任何事件的情况。在这种情况下,即使在具有强关联统计证据的研究中,许多用于获得RR置信区间(CI)的标准方法也不可行。文献中提出了不同的解决这一挑战的策略。本文采用数学论证和统计模拟,旨在呈现、比较和讨论在其中一个比较组无事件发生的情况下获得RR置信区间的不同统计方法。此外,我们将这些频率论方法与贝叶斯方法进行比较,以确定RR的可信区间(CrI)。我们的结果表明,大多数建议的方法可用于在无事件发生的情况下获得RR的CI(或CrI),尽管基于刻意概率考量的方法得到的单侧区间应优于临时方法。此外,我们证明了贝叶斯方法可用于在这些情况下获得CrI。因此,即使在其中一个比较组无事件发生的研究中,也有可能获得RR的统计推断,并且应始终提供RR的CI。然而,重要的是要注意,在小样本量的情况下,所获得的区间对所选方法敏感。