Abstract:Abstract Background: The assumption that the sampling distribution of the crude Odds Ratio (ORcrude) is a lognormal distribution with parameters mu and sigma leads to the incorrect conclusion that the expectation of the log of ORcrude is equal to the parameter mu. Here, the standard method of point and interval estimation (I) is compared with a modified method utilizing ORstar where ln(ORstar) = ln(ORcrude )– sigma **2/2. Methods: Confidence intervals are obtained utilizing ln(ORstar) by both parametric bootstrap simulations with a percentile derived confidence interval (II), and a simple calculation done by replacing ln(ORcrude) with ln(ORstar) in the standard formula (III) as well as a method proposed by Barendregt (IV), who also noted the bias present in estimating ORtrue by ORcrude. Simulations are conducted for a “protective” exposure (ORtrue 1). Results: In simulations the estimation methods (II and III) exhibited the highest level of statistical conclusion validity for their confidence intervals as indicated by one minus the coverage probability being close to alpha. Also, as demonstrated by the MC simulations, these two methods exhibited the least biased point estimates and the narrowest confidence intervals of the four estimation approaches. Conclusions: Monte Carlo simulations prove useful in validating the inferential procedures used in data analysis. In the case of the odds ratio, the standard method of point and interval estimation is based on the assumption that the crude odds ratio has a sampling distribution that is lognormal. Utilizing this assumption, as well as the formula for the expectation of this distribution function, an alternative estimation method was obtained for ORtrue (but different from a method from the earlier report (Barendregt)), that yielded point and interval estimates that MC simulations indicate are the most statistically valid.

Some Results about Standardization for a Non Confounder in Estimators of (log) Relative Risk

Comparison Between Estimates of the Potential Proportion with and Without Standardization for A Non-Confounder

Modified Poisson Regression Model for Data of Prospective Studies with Common Outcomes

What'S the Relative Risk? A Method of Correcting the Odds Ratio in Cohort Studies of Common Outcomes

A General formulation for standardization of rates as a method to control confounding by measured and unmeasured disease risk factors

Estimation of Relative Risk Using a Log-Binomial Model with Constraints

Statistical Inference for a Relative Risk Measure

Standardization and Control for Confounding in Observational Studies: A Historical Perspective

Adjusting for non-confounding covariates in case-control association studies

Estimating confidence regions of common measures of (baseline, treatment effect) on dichotomous outcome of a population

Covariate adjustment and estimation of difference in proportions in randomized clinical trials

Conditional Relative Risk: An association measure for longitudinal data analysis

A stratification approach using logit-based models for confounder adjustment in the study of continuous outcomes

Rothman diagrams: the geometry of confounding and standardization

Regression Analysis for Covariate-Adaptive Randomization: A Robust and Efficient Inference Perspective

A Comparison of Approaches to Control for Confounding Factors by Regression Models

Sensitivity Analysis for Unmeasured Confounding in the Estimation of Marginal Causal Effects

Homogeneity tests and interval estimations of risk differences for stratified bilateral and unilateral correlated data

Assessing the Lognormal Distribution Assumption For the Crude Odds Ratio: Implications For Point and Interval Estimation

Clarifying the Role of the Mantel-Haenszel Risk Difference Estimator in Randomized Clinical Trials

Conditional and Unconditional Treatment Effects in Randomized Clinical Trials: Estimands, Estimation, and Interpretation