Amand F Schmidt1, Rolf H H Groenwold2, Mirjam J Knol3, Arno W Hoes4, Mirjam Nielen5, Kit C B Roes4, Anthonius de Boer6, Olaf H Klungel2. 1. Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, P.O. Box 85500, 3508 GA Utrecht, The Netherlands; Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Clinical Pharmacology, Utrecht Institute for Pharmaceutical Sciences, P.O. Box 80082, 3508 TB Utrecht, The Netherlands; Department of Farm Animal Health, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Utrecht University, Yalelaan 107, 3584 CL Utrecht, The Netherlands. Electronic address: a.f.schmidt@umcutrecht.nl. 2. Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, P.O. Box 85500, 3508 GA Utrecht, The Netherlands; Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Clinical Pharmacology, Utrecht Institute for Pharmaceutical Sciences, P.O. Box 80082, 3508 TB Utrecht, The Netherlands. 3. Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, P.O. Box 85500, 3508 GA Utrecht, The Netherlands; RIVM, National Institute for Public Health and the Environment Centre for Infectious Disease Control Netherlands (CIb) Epidemiology and Surveillance Unit (EPI), P.O. Box 1, 3720 BA Bilthoven, The Netherlands. 4. Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, P.O. Box 85500, 3508 GA Utrecht, The Netherlands. 5. Department of Farm Animal Health, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Utrecht University, Yalelaan 107, 3584 CL Utrecht, The Netherlands. 6. Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Clinical Pharmacology, Utrecht Institute for Pharmaceutical Sciences, P.O. Box 80082, 3508 TB Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To give a comprehensive comparison of the performance of commonly applied interaction tests. METHODS: A literature review and simulation study was performed evaluating interaction tests on the odds ratio (OR) or the risk difference (RD) scales: Cochran Q (Q), Breslow-Day (BD), Tarone, unconditional score, likelihood ratio (LR), Wald, and relative excess risk due to interaction (RERI)-based tests. RESULTS: Review results agreed with results from our simulation study, which showed that on the OR scale, in small sample sizes (eg, number of subjects ≤ 250) the type 1 error rates of the LR test was 0.10; the BD and Tarone tests showed results around 0.05. On the RD scale, the LR and RERI tests had error rates around 0.05. On both scales, tests did not differ regarding power. When exposure prevented the outcome RERI-based tests were relatively underpowered (eg, N = 100; RERI power = 5% vs. Wald power = 18%). With increasing sample size, difference decreased. CONCLUSION: In small samples, interaction tests differed. On the OR scale, the Tarone and BD tests are recommended. On the RD scale, the LR and RERI-based tests performed best. However, RERI-based tests are underpowered compared with other tests, when exposure prevents the outcome, and sample size is limited.
OBJECTIVE: To give a comprehensive comparison of the performance of commonly applied interaction tests. METHODS: A literature review and simulation study was performed evaluating interaction tests on the odds ratio (OR) or the risk difference (RD) scales: Cochran Q (Q), Breslow-Day (BD), Tarone, unconditional score, likelihood ratio (LR), Wald, and relative excess risk due to interaction (RERI)-based tests. RESULTS: Review results agreed with results from our simulation study, which showed that on the OR scale, in small sample sizes (eg, number of subjects ≤ 250) the type 1 error rates of the LR test was 0.10; the BD and Tarone tests showed results around 0.05. On the RD scale, the LR and RERI tests had error rates around 0.05. On both scales, tests did not differ regarding power. When exposure prevented the outcome RERI-based tests were relatively underpowered (eg, N = 100; RERI power = 5% vs. Wald power = 18%). With increasing sample size, difference decreased. CONCLUSION: In small samples, interaction tests differed. On the OR scale, the Tarone and BD tests are recommended. On the RD scale, the LR and RERI-based tests performed best. However, RERI-based tests are underpowered compared with other tests, when exposure prevents the outcome, and sample size is limited.
Authors: David van Klaveren; Yvonne Vergouwe; Vasim Farooq; Patrick W Serruys; Ewout W Steyerberg Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2015-02-27 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: Johannes M I H Gho; Amand F Schmidt; Laura Pasea; Stefan Koudstaal; Mar Pujades-Rodriguez; Spiros Denaxas; Anoop D Shah; Riyaz S Patel; Chris P Gale; Arno W Hoes; John G Cleland; Harry Hemingway; Folkert W Asselbergs Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2018-03-03 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: M Abdullah Said; Yordi J van de Vegte; Muhammad Mobeen Zafar; M Yldau van der Ende; Ghazala Kaukab Raja; N Verweij; Pim van der Harst Journal: Curr Cardiol Rep Date: 2019-07-27 Impact factor: 2.931