Literature DB >> 1415166

Efficiency loss from categorizing quantitative exposures into qualitative exposures in case-control studies.

L P Zhao1, L N Kolonel.   

Abstract

In the analysis of data from case-control studies, quantitative exposure variables are frequently categorized into qualitative exposure variables, such as quarters. The qualitative exposure variables may be scalar variables that take the median values of each quantile interval, or they may be vectors of indicator variables that represent each quantile interval. In a qualitative analysis, the scalar variables may be used to test the dose-response relation, while the indicator variables may be used to estimate odds ratios for each higher quantile interval versus the lowest. Qualitative analysis, implicitly and explicitly documented by many epidemiologists and biostatisticians, has several desirable advantages (including simple interpretation and robustness in the presence of a misspecified model or outlier values). In a quantitative analysis, the quantitative exposure variables may be directly regressed to test the dose-response relation, as well as to estimate odds ratios of interest. As this paper demonstrates, quantitative analysis is generally more efficient than qualitative analysis. Through a Monte Carlo simulation study, the authors estimated the loss of efficiency that results from categorizing a quantitative exposure variable by quartiles in case-control studies with a total of 200 cases and 200 controls. In the analysis of the dose-response relation, this loss is about 30% or more; the percentage may reach about 50% when the odds ratio for the fourth quartile interval versus the lowest is around 4. In estimating odds ratios, the loss of efficiency for the second, third, and fourth quartile intervals versus the lowest is around 90%, 75%, and 40%, respectively. The authors consider the pros and cons of each analytic approach, and they recommend that 1) qualitative analysis be used initially to estimate the odds ratios for each higher quantile interval versus the lowest to examine the dose-response relation and determine the appropriateness of the assumed underlying model; and 2) quantitative analysis be used to test the dose-response relation under a plausible log odds ratio model.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1992        PMID: 1415166     DOI: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a116520

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Epidemiol        ISSN: 0002-9262            Impact factor:   4.897


  25 in total

Review 1.  Issues in the reporting of epidemiological studies: a survey of recent practice.

Authors:  Stuart J Pocock; Timothy J Collier; Kimberley J Dandreo; Bianca L de Stavola; Marlene B Goldman; Leslie A Kalish; Linda E Kasten; Valerie A McCormack
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2004-10-06

2.  Revisiting the interaction between birth weight and current body size in the foetal origins of adult disease.

Authors:  Yu-Kang Tu; Samuel O M Manda; George T H Ellison; Mark S Gilthorpe
Journal:  Eur J Epidemiol       Date:  2007-07-20       Impact factor: 8.082

3.  Modeling nonlinear dose-response relationships in epidemiologic studies: statistical approaches and practical challenges.

Authors:  Susanne May; Carol Bigelow
Journal:  Dose Response       Date:  2006-05-22       Impact factor: 2.658

4.  Analysis by categorizing or dichotomizing continuous variables is inadvisable: an example from the natural history of unruptured aneurysms.

Authors:  O Naggara; J Raymond; F Guilbert; D Roy; A Weill; D G Altman
Journal:  AJNR Am J Neuroradiol       Date:  2011-02-17       Impact factor: 3.825

5.  Nonlinear association between bone mineral density and all-cause mortality: the Dong-gu study.

Authors:  C K Choi; S -S Kweon; Y -H Lee; H -S Nam; K -S Park; S -Y Ryu; S -W Choi; S A Kim; M -H Shin
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2018-07-16       Impact factor: 4.507

6.  Psychosocial correlates of weight maintenance among black & white adults.

Authors:  Melanie Warziski Turk; Susan M Sereika; Kyeongra Yang; Linda J Ewing; Marilyn Hravnak; Lora E Burke
Journal:  Am J Health Behav       Date:  2012-03

7.  Combined effect of tobacco smoking and alcohol drinking in the risk of head and neck cancers: a re-analysis of case-control studies using bi-dimensional spline models.

Authors:  Luigino Dal Maso; Nicola Torelli; Elisa Biancotto; Matteo Di Maso; Andrea Gini; Gianni Franchin; Fabio Levi; Carlo La Vecchia; Diego Serraino; Jerry Polesel
Journal:  Eur J Epidemiol       Date:  2015-04-09       Impact factor: 8.082

8.  Explanation and Elaboration Document for the STROBE-Vet Statement: Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology-Veterinary Extension.

Authors:  A M O'Connor; J M Sargeant; I R Dohoo; H N Erb; M Cevallos; M Egger; A K Ersbøll; S W Martin; L R Nielsen; D L Pearl; D U Pfeiffer; J Sanchez; M E Torrence; H Vigre; C Waldner; M P Ward
Journal:  J Vet Intern Med       Date:  2016-11-07       Impact factor: 3.333

9.  Brief Report: Assessing and Interpreting the Association Between Continuous Covariates and Outcomes in Observational Studies of HIV Using Splines.

Authors:  Bryan E Shepherd; Peter F Rebeiro
Journal:  J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr       Date:  2017-03-01       Impact factor: 3.731

10.  Categorisation of continuous risk factors in epidemiological publications: a survey of current practice.

Authors:  Elizabeth L Turner; Joanna E Dobson; Stuart J Pocock
Journal:  Epidemiol Perspect Innov       Date:  2010-10-15
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.