Odds ratio or prevalence ratio? An overview of reported statistical methods and appropriateness of interpretations in cross-sectional studies with dichotomous outcomes in veterinary medicine
Autor(a) principal: | |
---|---|
Data de Publicação: | 2017 |
Outros Autores: | , , , , |
Tipo de documento: | Artigo |
Idioma: | eng |
Título da fonte: | Repositório Institucional da UFRGS |
Texto Completo: | http://hdl.handle.net/10183/172582 |
Resumo: | One of the most commonly observational study designs employed in veterinary is the cross-sectional study with binary outcomes. To measure an association with exposure, the use of prevalence ratios (PR) or odds ratios (OR) are possible. In human epidemiology, much has been discussed about the use of the OR exclusively for case–control studies and some authors reported that there is no good justification for fitting logistic regression when the prevalence of the disease is high, in which OR overestimate the PR. Nonetheless, interpretation of OR is difficult since confusing between risk and odds can lead to incorrect quantitative interpretation of data such as “the risk is X times greater,” commonly reported in studies that use OR. The aims of this study were (1) to review articles with cross-sectional designs to assess the statistical method used and the appropriateness of the interpretation of the estimated measure of association and (2) to illustrate the use of alternative statistical methods that estimate PR directly. An overview of statistical methods and its interpretation using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines was conducted and included a diverse set of peer-reviewed journals among the veterinary science field using PubMed as the search engine. From each article, the statistical method used and the appropriateness of the interpretation of the estimated measure of association were registered. Additionally, four alternative models for logistic regression that estimate directly PR were tested using our own dataset from a cross-sectional study on bovine viral diarrhea virus The initial search strategy found 62 articles, in which 6 articles were excluded and therefore 56 studies were used for the overall analysis. The review showed that independent of the level of prevalence reported, 96% of articles employed logistic regression, thus estimating the OR. Results of the multivariate models indicated that logistic regression was the method that most overestimated the PR. The findings of this study indicate that although there are methods that directly estimate PR, many studies in veterinary science do not use these methods and misinterpret the OR estimated by the logistic regression. |
id |
UFRGS-2_0f43c47583fbd8cce5a950d6720e726c |
---|---|
oai_identifier_str |
oai:www.lume.ufrgs.br:10183/172582 |
network_acronym_str |
UFRGS-2 |
network_name_str |
Repositório Institucional da UFRGS |
repository_id_str |
|
spelling |
Martinez, Brayan Alexander FonsecaLeotti, Vanessa BielefeldtSilva, Gustavo de Sousa eNunes, Luciana NevesMachado, GustavoCorbellini, Luis Gustavo2018-02-16T02:29:41Z20172297-1769http://hdl.handle.net/10183/172582001054793One of the most commonly observational study designs employed in veterinary is the cross-sectional study with binary outcomes. To measure an association with exposure, the use of prevalence ratios (PR) or odds ratios (OR) are possible. In human epidemiology, much has been discussed about the use of the OR exclusively for case–control studies and some authors reported that there is no good justification for fitting logistic regression when the prevalence of the disease is high, in which OR overestimate the PR. Nonetheless, interpretation of OR is difficult since confusing between risk and odds can lead to incorrect quantitative interpretation of data such as “the risk is X times greater,” commonly reported in studies that use OR. The aims of this study were (1) to review articles with cross-sectional designs to assess the statistical method used and the appropriateness of the interpretation of the estimated measure of association and (2) to illustrate the use of alternative statistical methods that estimate PR directly. An overview of statistical methods and its interpretation using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines was conducted and included a diverse set of peer-reviewed journals among the veterinary science field using PubMed as the search engine. From each article, the statistical method used and the appropriateness of the interpretation of the estimated measure of association were registered. Additionally, four alternative models for logistic regression that estimate directly PR were tested using our own dataset from a cross-sectional study on bovine viral diarrhea virus The initial search strategy found 62 articles, in which 6 articles were excluded and therefore 56 studies were used for the overall analysis. The review showed that independent of the level of prevalence reported, 96% of articles employed logistic regression, thus estimating the OR. Results of the multivariate models indicated that logistic regression was the method that most overestimated the PR. The findings of this study indicate that although there are methods that directly estimate PR, many studies in veterinary science do not use these methods and misinterpret the OR estimated by the logistic regression.application/pdfengFrontiers in Veterinary Science. Lausanne. Vol. 4 (Nov. 2017), Article 193 [8 f.].Razão de chancesRazão de prevalênciasEpidemiologia veterinariaModelo bayesianoModelo de poissonRegressão logísticaOdds ratioPrevalence ratioVeterinary epidemiologyLog-binomial modelBayesian modelCrosssectional studyPoisson modelLogistic regressionOdds ratio or prevalence ratio? An overview of reported statistical methods and appropriateness of interpretations in cross-sectional studies with dichotomous outcomes in veterinary medicineEstrangeiroinfo:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessreponame:Repositório Institucional da UFRGSinstname:Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS)instacron:UFRGSORIGINAL001054793.pdf001054793.pdfTexto completo (inglês)application/pdf364622http://www.lume.ufrgs.br/bitstream/10183/172582/1/001054793.pdf7ae92a31cd835c655712084abf842e39MD51TEXT001054793.pdf.txt001054793.pdf.txtExtracted Texttext/plain48348http://www.lume.ufrgs.br/bitstream/10183/172582/2/001054793.pdf.txt491112dbfc76378a4f52ac2b2389fcebMD52THUMBNAIL001054793.pdf.jpg001054793.pdf.jpgGenerated Thumbnailimage/jpeg2006http://www.lume.ufrgs.br/bitstream/10183/172582/3/001054793.pdf.jpge29a16d53f1b9b44c5bcecf1cbc71af9MD5310183/1725822018-10-29 07:40:00.205oai:www.lume.ufrgs.br:10183/172582Repositório de PublicaçõesPUBhttps://lume.ufrgs.br/oai/requestopendoar:2018-10-29T10:40Repositório Institucional da UFRGS - Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS)false |
dc.title.pt_BR.fl_str_mv |
Odds ratio or prevalence ratio? An overview of reported statistical methods and appropriateness of interpretations in cross-sectional studies with dichotomous outcomes in veterinary medicine |
title |
Odds ratio or prevalence ratio? An overview of reported statistical methods and appropriateness of interpretations in cross-sectional studies with dichotomous outcomes in veterinary medicine |
spellingShingle |
Odds ratio or prevalence ratio? An overview of reported statistical methods and appropriateness of interpretations in cross-sectional studies with dichotomous outcomes in veterinary medicine Martinez, Brayan Alexander Fonseca Razão de chances Razão de prevalências Epidemiologia veterinaria Modelo bayesiano Modelo de poisson Regressão logística Odds ratio Prevalence ratio Veterinary epidemiology Log-binomial model Bayesian model Crosssectional study Poisson model Logistic regression |
title_short |
Odds ratio or prevalence ratio? An overview of reported statistical methods and appropriateness of interpretations in cross-sectional studies with dichotomous outcomes in veterinary medicine |
title_full |
Odds ratio or prevalence ratio? An overview of reported statistical methods and appropriateness of interpretations in cross-sectional studies with dichotomous outcomes in veterinary medicine |
title_fullStr |
Odds ratio or prevalence ratio? An overview of reported statistical methods and appropriateness of interpretations in cross-sectional studies with dichotomous outcomes in veterinary medicine |
title_full_unstemmed |
Odds ratio or prevalence ratio? An overview of reported statistical methods and appropriateness of interpretations in cross-sectional studies with dichotomous outcomes in veterinary medicine |
title_sort |
Odds ratio or prevalence ratio? An overview of reported statistical methods and appropriateness of interpretations in cross-sectional studies with dichotomous outcomes in veterinary medicine |
author |
Martinez, Brayan Alexander Fonseca |
author_facet |
Martinez, Brayan Alexander Fonseca Leotti, Vanessa Bielefeldt Silva, Gustavo de Sousa e Nunes, Luciana Neves Machado, Gustavo Corbellini, Luis Gustavo |
author_role |
author |
author2 |
Leotti, Vanessa Bielefeldt Silva, Gustavo de Sousa e Nunes, Luciana Neves Machado, Gustavo Corbellini, Luis Gustavo |
author2_role |
author author author author author |
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv |
Martinez, Brayan Alexander Fonseca Leotti, Vanessa Bielefeldt Silva, Gustavo de Sousa e Nunes, Luciana Neves Machado, Gustavo Corbellini, Luis Gustavo |
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv |
Razão de chances Razão de prevalências Epidemiologia veterinaria Modelo bayesiano Modelo de poisson Regressão logística |
topic |
Razão de chances Razão de prevalências Epidemiologia veterinaria Modelo bayesiano Modelo de poisson Regressão logística Odds ratio Prevalence ratio Veterinary epidemiology Log-binomial model Bayesian model Crosssectional study Poisson model Logistic regression |
dc.subject.eng.fl_str_mv |
Odds ratio Prevalence ratio Veterinary epidemiology Log-binomial model Bayesian model Crosssectional study Poisson model Logistic regression |
description |
One of the most commonly observational study designs employed in veterinary is the cross-sectional study with binary outcomes. To measure an association with exposure, the use of prevalence ratios (PR) or odds ratios (OR) are possible. In human epidemiology, much has been discussed about the use of the OR exclusively for case–control studies and some authors reported that there is no good justification for fitting logistic regression when the prevalence of the disease is high, in which OR overestimate the PR. Nonetheless, interpretation of OR is difficult since confusing between risk and odds can lead to incorrect quantitative interpretation of data such as “the risk is X times greater,” commonly reported in studies that use OR. The aims of this study were (1) to review articles with cross-sectional designs to assess the statistical method used and the appropriateness of the interpretation of the estimated measure of association and (2) to illustrate the use of alternative statistical methods that estimate PR directly. An overview of statistical methods and its interpretation using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines was conducted and included a diverse set of peer-reviewed journals among the veterinary science field using PubMed as the search engine. From each article, the statistical method used and the appropriateness of the interpretation of the estimated measure of association were registered. Additionally, four alternative models for logistic regression that estimate directly PR were tested using our own dataset from a cross-sectional study on bovine viral diarrhea virus The initial search strategy found 62 articles, in which 6 articles were excluded and therefore 56 studies were used for the overall analysis. The review showed that independent of the level of prevalence reported, 96% of articles employed logistic regression, thus estimating the OR. Results of the multivariate models indicated that logistic regression was the method that most overestimated the PR. The findings of this study indicate that although there are methods that directly estimate PR, many studies in veterinary science do not use these methods and misinterpret the OR estimated by the logistic regression. |
publishDate |
2017 |
dc.date.issued.fl_str_mv |
2017 |
dc.date.accessioned.fl_str_mv |
2018-02-16T02:29:41Z |
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv |
Estrangeiro info:eu-repo/semantics/article |
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion |
format |
article |
status_str |
publishedVersion |
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv |
http://hdl.handle.net/10183/172582 |
dc.identifier.issn.pt_BR.fl_str_mv |
2297-1769 |
dc.identifier.nrb.pt_BR.fl_str_mv |
001054793 |
identifier_str_mv |
2297-1769 001054793 |
url |
http://hdl.handle.net/10183/172582 |
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv |
eng |
language |
eng |
dc.relation.ispartof.pt_BR.fl_str_mv |
Frontiers in Veterinary Science. Lausanne. Vol. 4 (Nov. 2017), Article 193 [8 f.]. |
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
eu_rights_str_mv |
openAccess |
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv |
application/pdf |
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv |
reponame:Repositório Institucional da UFRGS instname:Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS) instacron:UFRGS |
instname_str |
Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS) |
instacron_str |
UFRGS |
institution |
UFRGS |
reponame_str |
Repositório Institucional da UFRGS |
collection |
Repositório Institucional da UFRGS |
bitstream.url.fl_str_mv |
http://www.lume.ufrgs.br/bitstream/10183/172582/1/001054793.pdf http://www.lume.ufrgs.br/bitstream/10183/172582/2/001054793.pdf.txt http://www.lume.ufrgs.br/bitstream/10183/172582/3/001054793.pdf.jpg |
bitstream.checksum.fl_str_mv |
7ae92a31cd835c655712084abf842e39 491112dbfc76378a4f52ac2b2389fceb e29a16d53f1b9b44c5bcecf1cbc71af9 |
bitstream.checksumAlgorithm.fl_str_mv |
MD5 MD5 MD5 |
repository.name.fl_str_mv |
Repositório Institucional da UFRGS - Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS) |
repository.mail.fl_str_mv |
|
_version_ |
1801224936266661888 |