Reporting only relative effect measures was potentially misleading: some good practices for improving the soundness of epidemiological results.
Observational studies
Relative risk
Rounding error, Odds ratio, Confidence intervals
Statistical precision
Journal
Journal of clinical epidemiology
ISSN: 1878-5921
Titre abrégé: J Clin Epidemiol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 8801383
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
09 2021
09 2021
Historique:
received:
23
02
2021
revised:
08
04
2021
accepted:
15
04
2021
pubmed:
25
4
2021
medline:
11
11
2021
entrez:
24
4
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
In the medical and epidemiological literature there is a growing tendency to report an excessive number of decimal digits (often three, sometimes four), especially when measures of relative occurrence are small; this can be misleading. We combined mathematical and statistical reasoning about the precision of relative risks with the meaning of the decimal part of the same measures from biological and public health perspectives. We identified a general rule for minimizing the mathematical error due to rounding of relative risks, depending on the background absolute rate, which justifies the use of one or more decimal digits for estimates close to 1. We suggest that both relative and absolute risk measures (expressed as a rates) should be reported, and two decimal digits should be used for relative risk close to 1 only if the background rate is at least 1/1,000 py. The use of more than two decimal digits is justified only when the background rate is high (ie, 1/10 py).
Identifiants
pubmed: 33894329
pii: S0895-4356(21)00122-0
doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.04.006
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
195-199Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier Inc.