Literature DB >> 1986061

A consequence of omitted covariates when estimating odds ratios.

W W Hauck1, J M Neuhaus, J D Kalbfleisch, S Anderson.   

Abstract

In the epidemiologic literature, one finds three criteria for confounding, which we will call the classical (marginal), operational (change-in-estimate) and conditional criteria. We define mavericks to be covariates that satisfy the operational criterion, but not the classical criterion. We present what is known about the problems of mavericks for estimating odds ratios and clarify the interpretation of odds ratios. Key results are: (1) omitting mavericks biases odds ratios towards 1; (2) omitting mavericks cannot artificially introduce an effect in contrast to omitting classical confounders; (3) the operational criterion for confounding corresponds to the conditional criterion when estimating odds ratios, but for relative risks, there are no mavericks (i.e. the classical and operational criterion correspond); and (4) the interpretation of odds ratios obtained from standard methods is that of comparing proportions, not of individual risk.

Mesh:

Year:  1991        PMID: 1986061     DOI: 10.1016/0895-4356(91)90203-l

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol        ISSN: 0895-4356            Impact factor:   6.437


  13 in total

1.  Bias and efficiency in family-based gene-characterization studies: conditional, prospective, retrospective, and joint likelihoods.

Authors:  P Kraft; D C Thomas
Journal:  Am J Hum Genet       Date:  2000-03       Impact factor: 11.025

2.  Pilot study of a physician-delivered education tool to increase patient knowledge about CKD.

Authors:  Julie Wright Nunes; Jane H Greene; Kenneth Wallston; Svetlana Eden; Ayumi Shintani; Tom Elasy; Russell L Rothman; T Alp Ikizler; Kerri L Cavanaugh
Journal:  Am J Kidney Dis       Date:  2013-03-27       Impact factor: 8.860

3.  Abnormal urinary loss of vitamin C in diabetes: prevalence and clinical characteristics of a vitamin C renal leak.

Authors:  Ifechukwude Ebenuwa; Pierre-Christian Violet; Sebastian Padayatty; Yaohui Wang; Yu Wang; Henry Sun; Preston Adhikari; Sheila Smith; Hongbin Tu; Mahtab Niyyati; Kenneth Wilkins; Mark Levine
Journal:  Am J Clin Nutr       Date:  2022-07-06       Impact factor: 8.472

4.  Screening mammograms by community radiologists: variability in false-positive rates.

Authors:  Joann G Elmore; Diana L Miglioretti; Lisa M Reisch; Mary B Barton; William Kreuter; Cindy L Christiansen; Suzanne W Fletcher
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2002-09-18       Impact factor: 13.506

5.  Bias in parameter estimates due to omitting gene-environment interaction terms in case-control studies.

Authors:  Iryna Lobach
Journal:  Genet Epidemiol       Date:  2018-10-09       Impact factor: 2.135

6.  Assessment and implication of prognostic imbalance in randomized controlled trials with a binary outcome--a simulation study.

Authors:  Rong Chu; Stephen D Walter; Gordon Guyatt; P J Devereaux; Michael Walsh; Kristian Thorlund; Lehana Thabane
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2012-05-22       Impact factor: 3.240

7.  On tests of treatment-covariate interactions: An illustration of appropriate power and sample size calculations.

Authors:  Gwowen Shieh
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2017-05-17       Impact factor: 3.240

8.  Should multiple imputation be the method of choice for handling missing data in randomized trials?

Authors:  Thomas R Sullivan; Ian R White; Amy B Salter; Philip Ryan; Katherine J Lee
Journal:  Stat Methods Med Res       Date:  2016-12-19       Impact factor: 3.021

9.  Covariate adjustment had similar benefits in small and large randomized controlled trials.

Authors:  Douglas D Thompson; Hester F Lingsma; William N Whiteley; Gordon D Murray; Ewout W Steyerberg
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2014-11-13       Impact factor: 6.437

10.  Sample size considerations for trials using cerebral white matter hyperintensity progression as an intermediate outcome at 1 year after mild stroke: results of a prospective cohort study.

Authors:  Francesca M Chappell; Maria Del Carmen Valdés Hernández; Stephen D Makin; Kirsten Shuler; Eleni Sakka; Martin S Dennis; Paul A Armitage; Susana Muñoz Maniega; Joanna M Wardlaw
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2017-02-21       Impact factor: 2.279

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.