Literature DB >> 11747681

Good for women, good for men, bad for people: Simpson's paradox and the importance of sex-specific analysis in observational studies.

S G Baker1, B S Kramer.   

Abstract

Even if a medial intervention has a beneficial effect in both men and women, an observational study that combines data from men and women can lead to the incorrect conclusion that treatment has a harmful effect. This is an example of Simpson's paradox, which although uncommon in practice, does, in fact, occur (Wainer H. Simpson's paradox. Chance 1999;12:43). More importantly, it is likely that in an observational study, a related result will occur; namely, ignoring sex in the analysis will lead to biased results. To better understand why Simpson's paradox and the related result occur, we present a graphic explanation.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2001        PMID: 11747681     DOI: 10.1089/152460901753285769

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Womens Health Gend Based Med        ISSN: 1524-6094


  12 in total

1.  IOP-induced lamina cribrosa deformation and scleral canal expansion: independent or related?

Authors:  Ian A Sigal; Hongli Yang; Michael D Roberts; Jonathan L Grimm; Claude F Burgoyne; Shaban Demirel; J Crawford Downs
Journal:  Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci       Date:  2011-11-21       Impact factor: 4.799

2.  Surrogate endpoint analysis: an exercise in extrapolation.

Authors:  Stuart G Baker; Barnett S Kramer
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2012-12-21       Impact factor: 13.506

3.  Two-Part Predictors in Regression Models.

Authors:  John J Dziak; Kimberly L Henry
Journal:  Multivariate Behav Res       Date:  2017-06-16       Impact factor: 5.923

4.  Road trauma in teenage male youth with childhood disruptive behavior disorders: a population based analysis.

Authors:  Donald A Redelmeier; William K Chan; Hong Lu
Journal:  PLoS Med       Date:  2010-11-16       Impact factor: 11.069

5.  Causal inference, probability theory, and graphical insights.

Authors:  Stuart G Baker
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2013-05-10       Impact factor: 2.373

6.  The transitive fallacy for randomized trials: if A bests B and B bests C in separate trials, is A better than C?

Authors:  Stuart G Baker; Barnett S Kramer
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2002-11-13       Impact factor: 4.615

7.  Randomized trials, generalizability, and meta-analysis: graphical insights for binary outcomes.

Authors:  Stuart G Baker; Barnett S Kramer
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2003-06-16       Impact factor: 4.615

8.  A simple method for analyzing data from a randomized trial with a missing binary outcome.

Authors:  Stuart G Baker; Laurence S Freedman
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2003-05-06       Impact factor: 4.615

9.  The paired availability design for historical controls.

Authors:  S G Baker; K S Lindeman; B S Kramer
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2001-09-26       Impact factor: 4.615

10.  Simpson's paradox visualized: the example of the rosiglitazone meta-analysis.

Authors:  Gerta Rücker; Martin Schumacher
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2008-05-30       Impact factor: 4.615

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.