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.

Two-tailed asymptotic inferences for the odds ratio in cross-sectional studies: evaluation of fifteen old and new methods of inference

One-tailed asymptotic inferences for the difference of proportions: Analysis of 97 methods of inference

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

Miettinen and Nurminen score statistics revisited

Hypothesis Test to Compare Two Paired Binomial Proportions: Assessment of 24 Methods

An efficient asymptotic approach for testing monotone proportions assuming an underlying logit based order dose-response model

Tests for equivalence based on odds ratio for matched-pair design

Common odds ratio test and interval estimation for stratified bilateral and unilateral data

Likelihood Ratio Test and the Evidential Approach for 2 × 2 Tables

Comparison of tests for categorical data from a stratified cluster randomized trial

Combining estimates of the odds ratio: the state of the art

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

Two-sided confidence interval of a binomial proportion: how to choose?

Formulas, Algorithms and Examples for Binomial Distributed Data Confidence Interval Calculation: Excess Risk, Relative Risk and Odds Ratio

Intrinsic tests for the equality of two correlated proportions

An optimal exact confidence interval for the difference of two independent binomial proportions

The impact of clustering binary data on relative risk towards a study of inferential methods

Confidence intervals for odds ratio from multistage randomized phase II trials

A Nonparametric Measure of Local Association for two-way Contingency Tables

Analysis of two Binomial Proportions in Non-inferiority Confirmatory Trials

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