4.5 Article

Prevalence odds ratio versus prevalence ratio: choice comes with consequences

期刊

STATISTICS IN MEDICINE
卷 35, 期 30, 页码 5730-5735

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/sim.7059

关键词

prevalence odds ratio; prevalence ratio; odds ratio; risk ratio; association

资金

  1. University of Alabama at Birmingham Center for AIDS Research an NIH [P30 AI027767]
  2. University of Alabama at Birmingham Center for AIDS Research an NIH NIAID
  3. University of Alabama at Birmingham Center for AIDS Research an NIH NCI
  4. University of Alabama at Birmingham Center for AIDS Research an NIH NICHD
  5. University of Alabama at Birmingham Center for AIDS Research an NIH NHLBI
  6. University of Alabama at Birmingham Center for AIDS Research an NIH NIDA
  7. University of Alabama at Birmingham Center for AIDS Research an NIH NIMH
  8. University of Alabama at Birmingham Center for AIDS Research an NIH NIA
  9. University of Alabama at Birmingham Center for AIDS Research an NIH FIC
  10. University of Alabama at Birmingham Center for AIDS Research an NIH OAR
  11. NHLBI [K23HL126570]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Odds ratio, risk ratio, and prevalence ratio are some of the measures of association which are often reported in research studies quantifying the relationship between an independent variable and the outcome of interest. There has been much debate on the issue of which measure is appropriate to report depending on the study design. However, the literature on selecting a particular category of the outcome to be modeled and/or change in reference group for categorical independent variables and the effect on statistical significance, although known, is scantly discussed nor published with examples. In this article, we provide an example of a cross-sectional study wherein prevalence ratio was chosen over (Prevalence) odds ratio and demonstrate the analytic implications of the choice of category to be modeled and choice of reference level for independent variables. Copyright (c) 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据