Journal
JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY
Volume 60, Issue 9, Pages 874-882Publisher
PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2006.12.001
Keywords
logistic regression; relative risk; bootstrap; Simulations; standardization; odds ratio
Funding
- AHRQ HHS [R03 HS 11481-01, U18 HS10399] Funding Source: Medline
Ask authors/readers for more resources
Objective: To assess alternative statistical methods for estimating relative risks and their confidence intervals from multivariable binary regression when outcomes are common. Study Design and Setting: We performed simulations on two hypothetical groups of patients in a single-center study, either randomized or cohort, and reanalyzed a published observational study. Outcomes of interest were the bias of relative risk estimates, coverage of 95% confidence intervals, and the Akaike information criterion. Results: According to simulations, a commonly used method of computing confidence intervals for relative risk substantially overstates statistical significance in typical applications when outcomes are common. Generalized linear models other than logistic regression sometimes failed to converge, or produced estimated risks that exceeded 1.0. Conditional or marginal standardization using logistic regression and bootstrap resampling estimated risks within the [0,I] bounds and relative risks with appropriate confidence intervals. Conclusion: Especially when outcomes are common, relative risks and confidence intervals are easily computed indirectly from multivariable logistic regression. Log-linear regression models, by contrast, are problematic when outcomes are common. (c) 2007 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Authors
I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.
Reviews
Recommended
No Data Available