• myGriffith
    • Staff portal
    • Contact Us⌄
      • Future student enquiries 1800 677 728
      • Current student enquiries 1800 154 055
      • International enquiries +61 7 3735 6425
      • General enquiries 07 3735 7111
      • Online enquiries
      • Staff phonebook
    View Item 
    •   Home
    • Griffith Research Online
    • Journal articles
    • View Item
    • Home
    • Griffith Research Online
    • Journal articles
    • View Item
    JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.

    Browse

  • All of Griffith Research Online
    • Communities & Collections
    • Authors
    • By Issue Date
    • Titles
  • This Collection
    • Authors
    • By Issue Date
    • Titles
  • Statistics

  • Most Popular Items
  • Statistics by Country
  • Most Popular Authors
  • Support

  • Contact us
  • FAQs
  • Admin login

  • Login
  • The OR is "portable" but not the RR: Time to do away with the log link in binomial regression

    Thumbnail
    View/Open
    Thalib507560-Accepted.pdf (556.3Kb)
    File version
    Accepted Manuscript (AM)
    Author(s)
    Doi, Suhail A
    Furuya-Kanamori, Luis
    Xu, Chang
    Chivese, Tawanda
    Lin, Lifeng
    Musa, Omran AH
    Hindy, George
    Thalib, Lukman
    Harrell, Frank E
    Griffith University Author(s)
    Thalib, Lukman
    Year published
    2021
    Metadata
    Show full item record
    Abstract
    OBJECTIVES: In a recent paper we suggest that the relative risk (RR) be replaced with the odds ratio (OR) as the effect measure of choice in clinical epidemiology. In response, Chu and colleagues raise several points that argue for the status quo. In this paper, we respond to their response. STUDY DESIGNS AND SETTINGS: We use the same examples given by Chu and colleagues to recompute estimates of effect and demonstrate the problem with the RR. RESULTS: We reaffirm the following findings: a) the OR and RR measure different things and their numerical difference is only important if misinterpreted b) this potential misinterpretation ...
    View more >
    OBJECTIVES: In a recent paper we suggest that the relative risk (RR) be replaced with the odds ratio (OR) as the effect measure of choice in clinical epidemiology. In response, Chu and colleagues raise several points that argue for the status quo. In this paper, we respond to their response. STUDY DESIGNS AND SETTINGS: We use the same examples given by Chu and colleagues to recompute estimates of effect and demonstrate the problem with the RR. RESULTS: We reaffirm the following findings: a) the OR and RR measure different things and their numerical difference is only important if misinterpreted b) this potential misinterpretation is a trivial issue compared to the lack of portability of the RR c) the same examples reaffirm non-portability of the RR and demonstrate how misleading the results might be in contrast to the OR, which is independent of the baseline risk d) the concept of collapsibility for the OR should be expected in the presence of a non-confounding risk factor and is not a bias e) the log link in regression models that generate RRs as well as the use of RRs in meta-analysis is shown to be problematic using the same examples. CONCLUSIONS: The OR should replace the RR in clinical research and meta-analyses though there should be conversion of the end product into ratios or differences of risk, solely for interpretation. To this end we provide a Stata module (logittorisk) for this purpose.
    View less >
    Journal Title
    Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
    DOI
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.08.003
    Copyright Statement
    © 2021 Elsevier. Licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International Licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) which permits unrestricted, non-commercial use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, providing that the work is properly cited.
    Note
    This publication has been entered as an advanced online version in Griffith Research Online.
    Subject
    Mathematical sciences
    Biostatistics
    Health sciences
    baseline risk
    clinical trial, meta-analysis
    odds ratio
    relative risk
    Publication URI
    http://hdl.handle.net/10072/407046
    Collection
    • Journal articles

    Footer

    Disclaimer

    • Privacy policy
    • Copyright matters
    • CRICOS Provider - 00233E
    • TEQSA: PRV12076

    Tagline

    • Gold Coast
    • Logan
    • Brisbane - Queensland, Australia
    First Peoples of Australia
    • Aboriginal
    • Torres Strait Islander